









■ ' TO 

m 

■■ 

la'*', 1 HM 

■ ■ 



H 

H 






■ I 

■ 



$1 




Class ~BV#± 



PRESENTED BY 



A DISCOURSE 



ON THE NATURE AND DESIGN : 



EUCHARIST, 



SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 



BY ADAM CLARKE, LL. D. 



NEW-YORK: 

PUBLISHED BY G. LANE & P. P. SANBFORD, 

FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AT THE CONFERENCE 

OFFICE, 200 MULBERRY-STREET. 



James Collord, Printer. 
1842. 



Gift 
and Mrs. Isaac R. HHt 
JtHy 3, 1933 



PREFACE. 



In the following discourse, I have aimed, 
not at new discoveries in theology, but to do 
justice to a subject misconceived by most, 
raid neglected by many; a subject of the 
utmost consequence to divine revelation, and 
to the edification of the church of God. I 
shall not say, in order to vindicate its publi-^. 
cation, that it was done in consequence of 
the ardent, oft-repeated importunity of many 
respectable friends. Whatever may be owing 
to private friendship, is undoubtedly a high 
and imperious duty to discharge ; but no man 
can be excused in obtruding on the public 



4 PREFACE. 

any thing unworthy its notice, by such mo- 
tives as these. The holy eucharist I con- 
sider a rite designed by God to keep up a 
continual remembrance of the doctrine of the 
atonement. In this point of view, I thought 
it was not commonly considered by the gene- 
rality of Christians : and as I saw various 
opinions subversive of its nature and design 
prevailing among professors, I said, / will 
also show my opinion; in doing which, though 
I have brought my knowledge from afar, I 
have endeavoured to ascribe righteousness to 
my Maker. 

In looking over my work I feel but little 
pleasure at the appearance of so many quo- 
tations in strange characters. I can say in 
my vindication, I did not seek these ; they 
presented themselves on the respective •sub- 
jects with which they are connected ; and I 
accepted their assistance, judging that with 
many their testimony would go further than 



PREFACE. 



my own. The plain unlettered reader will 
have no reason to complain of these, as the- 
sense of each is carefully given ; and the man 
of learning will not be displeased to have the 
originals presented here to his view, which 
he might not have always at hand. These 
things excepted, I have endeavoured to be as 
plain and as clear as possible. I have af- 
fected no elegance of style ; this my subject 
did not require ; plain common sense was all 
I aimed at. I have not even given the work 
the form of a sermon; and by the rules of 
such compositions, I hope no man will at- 
tempt to judge of it. I began it in the name 
of God, and I sincerely dedicate it to his 
glory. May his blessing accompany the 
reading of it ! And may the important doc- 
trine of the atonement, made by the death 
of Christ, which it is chiefly intended to 
illustrate and defend, have free course, run, 
and be glorified, and mighty deeds be done 
in the name of Jesus ! 



b , PREFACE. 

My whole mind, on the execution of this 
work, I may express in the following words 
of an ancient writer : " If I have done well, 
and as is fitting the story, it is that which I 
desired : but if slenderly and meanly, it is 
that which I could attain unto ; and here shall 
be an end." 



INTRODUCTION. 



An examination of the question, Did our Lord 
eat the passover with his disciples on the last year 
of his public ministry ? 

As I shall have occasion frequently to refer 
to this subject in the ensuing discourse — a sub- 
ject on which the Christian world has been 
divided for at least fifteen hundred years — the 
reader will naturally expect to find some notice 
taken of the controversy concerning it ; and 
although a decision on the case cannot be ex- 
pected, yet a fair statement of the principal 
opinions which, at different times, have been 
held and defended by learned men should un- 
doubtedly be given. 

With no show of propriety could such a con- 
troversy be introduced into the body of a dis- 
course on the nature and design of the Lord's 
supper ; and yet the view I have taken of this 
ordinance is so intimately connected with the 
passover in general, that to pass by the contro- 
versy in silence would by many be deemed in- 
excusable. I shall therefore briefly state the 



8 DISCOURSE ON 

principal opinions on this question, the reason- 
ings by which they are supported, and take the 
liberty to notice that one especially which I 
judge to come nearest to the truth. The chief 
opinions are the four following : — 

I. Christ did not eat the passover on the last 
year of his ministry. 

II. He did eat it that year, and at the same 
time with the Jews. 

III. He did eat it that year, but not at the 
same time with the Jews. 

IV. He did eat a passover of his own insti- 
tuting, but widely different from that eaten by 
the Jews. 

I. The first opinion, that our Lord did not 
eat the passover, is thus maintained by Dr. 
Wall, in his critical notes on Matt, xxvi, 17. 

" Here occurs a question, and a difference 
between the words of St. John and the other 
e (evangelists,) concerning the day of the 
week on which the Jews kept the passover that 
year, 4746, (A. D. 33.) It is plain by all the 
four gospels, that this day on which Christ did, 
at night, eat the passover, (or what some call 
the passover,) was Thursday. And one would 
think, by reading the three, that that was the 
night on which the Jews did eat their passover 
lamb ; but all the texts of St. John are clear that 



THE EUCHARIST. b> 

they did not eat it till the next night, Friday 
night, before which night Christ was crucified 
and dead, having given up the ghost about the 
ninth hour, viz., three of the clock in the after- 
noon. St. John does speak of a supper which 
Christ did eat on Thursday night with his apos- 
tles, chap, xiii, 12 ; but he does not call it a 
passover supper, but, on the contrary, says it 
was before the feast of the passover, 7rpo rrjg 
eoprrjg rov 7rao%a ; by which I think he means 
the day before the passover, or the passover eve, 
as we should say. Now this was the same 
night, and same supper, which the three do call 
the passover, and Christ's eating the passover. 
I mean, it was the night on which Christ was 
(a few hours after supper) apprehended ; as is 
plain by the last verse of that thirteenth chap*' 
ter. But the next day (Friday, on which Christ 
was crucified) St. John makes to be the pass- 
over day. He says, chap, xviii, 28, the Jews 
would not go into the judgment hall on Friday 
morning, lest they should be defiled, but that 
they might eat the passover, viz., that evening. 
And chap, xix, 14, speaking of Friday noon,\ie 
says, it was the preparation of the passover. 
Upon the whole, John speaks not of eating the 
passover at all ; nor, indeed, do the three speak 
of his eating any lamb. Among all the expres- 



10 DISCOURSE ON 

sions which they use, of making ready the pass- 
over : prepare for me to eat the passover ; with 
desire have I desired to eat this passover with 
r you, &-c, there is no mention of any lamb car- 
ried to the temple to be slain by the Levites, and 
then brought to the house and roasted ; there 
is no mention of any food at the supper besides 
bread and wine ; perhaps there might be some 
bitter herbs. So that this seems to have been 
a commemorative supper, used by our Saviour 
instead of the proper paschal supper, the eating 
of a lamb, which should have been the next 
night, but that he himself was to be sacrificed 
before that time would come. And the differ- 
ence between St. John and the others is only a 
difference in words and in the names of things. 
They call that the passover which Christ used 
instead of it. If you say, "Why then does Mark, 
xiv, 12, call Thursday the first day of unleavened 
tM&d, when the passover must be killed ; we must 
note their day (or vvxSrjiispov) was from even- 
ing to evening. This Thursday evening was 
the beginning of that natural day of twenty-four 
hours, toward the end of which the lamb was to 
be killed ; so it is proper, in the Jew's way of 
calling days, to call it that day." 

II. He did eat the passover that year, and 
at the same time with the Jews 



THE EUCHARIST. 11 

1. The late Dr. Newcome, archbishop of 
Armagh, is of a very different opinion from Dr. 
Wall; and, from a careful collation of the pas- 
sages in the evangelists, concludes, " that our 
Lord did not anticipate this feast, but partook 
of it with the Jews, on the usual and national 
day." 

" It appears," says he, " from the gospel his- 
tory, (see Mark xv, 42 ; xvi, 9,) that our Lord 
was crucified on Friday. But the night before 
his crucifixion, on which he was betrayed, 
(1 Cor. xi, 23,) he kept the passover, and that 
he kept it at the legal time is thus determined. 
In Matt, xxvi, 2, and in Mark xiv, 1, it is said 
that the passover, koli ra a£vpa, were after two 
days, or on the day following that on which 
Jesus foretold his sufferings and resurrection to 
his disciples. Matt, xvi, 21, &c. ; Mark viii, 
31, &c. ; and Luke ix, 22, &c. 

" The evangelists, proceeding regularly in 
their history, Matt, xxvi, 17, and in the parallel 
places, Mark xiv, 12, &c, Luke xxii, 7, &c, 
mention is made of this day, and it is called the 
first day of unleavened bread, when they killed 
the passover, i. e., by general custom : and St. 
Luke says that the day came, which (verse 1) 
was approaching, when the passover must be 
killed ; i. e., by the law of Moses. The 14th 



12 DISCOURSE ON 

of Nisan is therefore meant, which is called 
7rpoT7j a^vficov, the first of unleavened bread. 

" During the week, therefore, of our Lord's 
passion, the law of Moses required that the 
passover should be slain on Thursday afternoon ; 
but our Lord partook of it on the night imme- 
diately succeeding, Matt, xxvi, 19, 20, and the 
parallel places, Luke xxii, 14, 15 ; and there- 
fore he partook of it at the legal time. 

" Mark xiv, 12, Luke xxii, 7, equally prove 
that the Jews kept the passover at the same 
time with Jesus. 

" To the objection, (John xviii, 28,) that the 
Jews avoided defilement that they might eat the 
passover, the bishop answers, that they meant 
the paschal sacrifices offered for seven days ; 
and they spoke particularly in reference to the 
15th of Nisan, which was a day of holy convo- 
cation. 

" To the objection taken from John xix, 14, 
that the day on which our Lord was crucified 
is called napaaKevT] rov nacxa, the preparation 
of the passover, he replies, that in Mark xv, 42, 
TrapaGfcevrj, preparation, is the same as txgo- 
aaddarov, the day before the sabbath ; and so in 
Luke xxiii, 54 ; therefore by rrapaaKevrj rov 
Traoxa we may understand the preparation be- 
fore that sabbath which happened during the 



THE EUCHARIST. 13 

paschal festival." This is the substance of 
what Archbishop Newcome says, both in his 
Harmony and Notes. See the latter, pp. 42-45* 

To this it is answered, that the opinion which 
states that our Lord ate the passover the same 
day and hour with the Jews, seems scarcely 
supportable. If he ate it the same hour the 
Jews ate theirs, he certainly could not have died 
that day, as they ate the passover on Friday, 4 
about six o'clock in the evening ; — if he did not, 
he must have been crucified on Saturday, the 
Jewish sabbath, and could not have risen again 
on the first day of the week, as all the evangel- 
ists testify, but on the second, or Monday, which 
I suppose few will attempt to support. On this, 
and other considerations, I think this point 
should be given up. But others argue thus : — 

" That Christ intended to eat a passover with 
his disciples on this occasion, and intensely de- 
sired it too, we have the fullest proof from the 
three first evangelists : see Matt, xxvi, 1,2,3, 
17-20; Mark xiv, 1, 12-16; Luke xxii, 1, 
7-13. And that he actually did eat one with 
them must appear most evidently to those who 
shall carefully collate the preceding scriptures, 
and especially what St. Luke says, chap, xxii, 
7-18 ; for when Peter and John had received 
their Lord's command to go and prepare the 



14 DISCOURSE ON 

passover, it is said, ver. 13, they went and found 
as he had said unto them ; and they made ready 
the passover ; i. e., got a lamb, and prepared 
it for the purpose, according to the law, ver. 14. 
And when the hour was come, (to eat it,) he sat 
down, aveneas, and the twelve apostles with him, 
ver. 15, and he said unto them, With desire have 
I desired to eat this passover with you before I 
suffer: where, it is to be noted, that they had 
now sat down to eat that passover which had 
been before prepared, and that every word which 
was spoken is peculiarly proper to the occasion. 
With desire, says our Lord, have I desired rovro 
to rcaoxa (f>ayetv, to eat this very passover ; 
not egBlelv to iraoxa, to eat a passover, or some- 
commemorative of it, but rovro ro iraaxd, 
ry passover : and it is no mean proof 
that they were then in the act of eating the flesh 
Kjl the paschal lamb, from the use of the verb 
(payeiv, which is most proper to the eating of 
flesh, as ecdiecv signifies eating in general, or 
eating bread, pulse, &c. The same word, in 
reference to the same act of eating the pass- 
over, not to the bread and wine of the holy sup- 
per, is used, ver. 16, For I say unto you, I will 
not any more eat thereof, ov \vr\ (frayo) ei; avrov, 
I will not eat of him, or it, viz., the paschal 
lamb, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God ; 



THE EUCHARIST. 15 

i. e., this shall be the last passover I shallcele- 
brate on earth, as I am now about to suffer, arid 
the kingdom of God, the plenitude of the gos- 
pel dispensation, shall immediately take place. 
And then, according to this evangelist, having 
finished the eating of the paschal lamb, he in- 
stituted the bread of the holy supper, (ver. 19,) 
and afterward the cup, (ver. 20,) though he and 
they had partaken of the cup of blessing, (usual 
on such occasions,) with the paschal lamb, im- 
mediately before : see ver. 17. Whoever care- 
Fully considers the whole of this account, must 
be convinced that, whatever may come of the 
question concerning the time of eating the pass- 
over, that our Lord did actually eat one with 
his disciples before he suffered." What this 
passover most probably was, we shall see under 
the fourth opinion. 

III. He did eat the passover that year, but 
not at the same time with the Jews. 

3. Dr. Cudworth, who of all others has 
handled this subject best, has proved from the 
Talmud, Mishna, and some of the most reputa- 
ble of the Jewish rabbins, that the ancient Jews, 
about our Saviour's time, often solemnized as 
well the passovers as the other feasts, upon the 
ferias next before and after the sabbaths. And 
that as the Jews in ancient times reckoned the 



16 DISCOURSE ON 

new moons not according to astronomical exact- n 
ness, but according to the <f>aoic, or moon's ap- 
pearance : and as this appearance might happen 
a day later than the real time, consequently 
there might be a whole day of difference in the 
* time of celebrating one of these feasts, which 
depended on a particular day of the month ; the 
days of the month being counted from the (fraoig, 
or appearance of the new moon. As he describes 
the whole manner of doing this, both from the 
Babylonish Talmud, and from Maimonides, I 
shall give an extract from this part of his work, 
that my readers may have the whole argument 
before them. 

"In the great or outer court there was a 
house called Beth Yazek, where the senate sat 
all the 30th day of every month, to receive the 
witnesses of the moon's appearance, and to ex- 
amine them. If there came approved witnesses 
on the 30th day, who could state they had seen 
the new moon, the chief man of the senate 
stood up, and cried TElpft mekuddash, it is sanc- 
tified ; and the people standing by caught the 
word from him, and cried, mekuddash ! mekud- 
dash ! But if, when the consistory had sat all 
the day, and there came no approved witnesses 
of the phasis, or appearance of the new moon, then 
they made an intercalation of one day in the 



THE EUCHARIST. 1? 

former month, and decreed the following one- 
and-thirtieth day to be the calends. But if, after 
the fourth ox fifth day, or even before the end of 
the mouthy respectable witnesses came from far, 
and testified they had seen the new moon, in 
its due time, the senate were bound to alter the 
beginning of the month, and reckon it a day 
sooner, viz., from the thirtieth day. 

" As the senate were very unwilling to be at 
the trouble of a second consecration, when they 
had even fixed on a wrong day, and therefore 
received, very reluctantly, the testimony of jsuch 
witnesses as those last mentioned, they after- 
ward made a statute to this effect : That what- 
soever time the senate should conclude on for the 
calends of the month, though it were certain they 
were in the wrong, yet all were bound to order 
their feasts according to zY." This Dr. Cudworth 
supposes actually took place in the time of our 
Lord, and " as it is not likely that our Lord 
would submit to this perversion of the original 
custom, and that following the true <j>aotg, or 
appearance of the new moon, confirmed by suf- 
ficient witnesses, he and his disciples ate the 
passover on that day ; but the Jews, following 
the pertinacious decree of the sanhedrim, did 
not eat it till the day following." Dr. C. fur- 
ther shows, from Epiphanius, that there was a 
2 



18 DISCOURSE ON 

contention, Oopvdog, a tumult, among the Jews 
about the passover that very year. Hence, it 
is likely that what was the real paschal day to 
i our Lord, his disciples, and many other pious 
Jews, who adopted the true (fxxng phasis, was 
only the preparation or antecedent evening to 
others, who acted on the decree of the senate. 
Besides, it is worthy of note, that not only the 
Karaites, who do not acknowledge the authority 
of the sanhedrim, but also the rabbins them- 
selves grant that, where the case is doubtful, 
the {Jassover should be celebrated with the same 
ceremonies, two days together : and it was al- 
ways doubtful, when the appearance of the new 
moon could not be fully ascertained. 

Bishop Pearce supposes that it was lawful 
for the Jews to eat the paschal lamb at any 
time between the evening of Thursday and that 
of Friday ; and that this permission was neces- 
sary, because of the immense number of lambs 
which were to be killed for that purpose : as in 
one year there were not fewer than two hun- 
dred and fifty-six thousand five hundred lambs 
offered. See Josephus's War, b. vii, chap. 9, 
sec. 3. In Matt, xxvi, 17, it is said, Now the 
first day of the feast of unleavened bread, (rirj 
de 7Tp(»)TXi tg)v a^Vficov,) the disciples came to 
Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that 



THE EUCHARIST. 10 

we prepare for thee to eat the passover ? As 
the feast of unleavened bread did not begin till 
the day after the passover, the fifteenth day of 
the month, (Lev. xxiii, 5, 6; Num. xxviii, 16,* 
17,) this could not have been properly the first 
day of that feast : but as the Jews began to eat 
unleavened bread on the fourteenth day, (Exod. 
xii, 18,) this day was often termed the first of \ 
unleavened bread. Now, it appears that the* 
evangelists use it in this sense, and call even 
the paschal day by this name : see Mark xiv, 
12 ; Luke xxii, 7. 

At first view this third opinion, which states 
that Christ did eat the passover with his disci- 
ples that year, but not in the same hour with 
the Jews ; and that he expired on the cross the 
same hour in which the paschal lamb was 
killed, seems the most probable : for it appears, 
from what has already been remarked, that our 
Lord and his disciples ate the passover some 
hours before the Jews ate theirs ; for they, ac- 
cording to custom, ate theirs at the end of the 
fourteenth day, but Christ appears to have eaten 
his the preceding evening, which was the be- 
ginning of the same sixth day of the week, or 
Friday, for the Jews began their day at sunset- 
ting; we at midnight. Thus Christ ate the 
passover the same day with the Jews, but not 



20 DISCOURSE ON 

on the same hour. Christ, therefore, kept this 
passover the beginning of the fourteenth day, 
the precise day in which the Jews had eaten 
their first passover in Egypt : see Exod. xii, 
6-12. And in the same part of the same day 
in which! they had sacrificed their first paschal 
lamb, viz., between the two evenings, i. e., between 
the sun's declining west, and his setting about 
itthe third hour, Jesus, our passover, was sacri- 
ficed for us. For it was about the third hour 
(Mark xv, 25) when Christ was nailed to the 
crosl, and about the ninth hour, (Matt, xxvii, 
46 ; Mark xv, 34,) Jesus knowing that the anti- 
type had accomplished every thing shadowed 
forth by the type or paschal lamb, he said, It 
is finished, rereXearai completed, perfected, and 
having thus said, he bowed his head, and dis- 
missed his spirit, Trapedojfce to frvevfia. John 
xix, 30. 

Probably there is but one objection of any 
force that lies against the opinion that our Lord 
ate his passover some hours before the Jews in 
general ate theirs ; which is, that if our Lord 
did eat the passover the evening before the 
Jews, in general, ate theirs, it could not have 
been sacrificed according to the law ; nor is it 
at all likely that the blood was sprinkled at the 
foot of the altar. If, therefore, the blood was 



THE EUCHARIST. 21 

not thus sprinkled by one of the priests,jhat 
which constituted the very essence of the rite, 
as ordained by God, was lacking in that cele- 
brated by our Lord. 

To this it may be answered : First, we have 
already seen that, in consequence of the im- 
mense number of sacrifices to be offered on the 
paschal solemnity, it was highly probable the 
Jews were obliged to employ two days for thj£ 
work. It is not at all likely that the blood of 
two hundred and fifty-six thousand five hun- 
dred lambs could be shed and sprinkled*S,t one 
altar, in the course of one day, by all the priests 
in Jerusalem, or indeed in the Holy Land ; 
since they had but that one altar where they 
could legally sprinkle the blood of the victims. 

Secondly, we have also seen that irr cases 
of doubt relative to the time of the appearance 
of the new moon, the Jews were permitted to 
hold the passover both days ; and that it is pro- 
bable such a dubious case existed at the time 
in question. In any of these cases, the lamb 
might have been killed, and its blood sprinkled 
according to the rules and ceremonies of the 
Jewish church. 

Thirdly, as our Lord was the true Paschal 
Lamb, who was, in a few hours after this time, 
to bear away the sin of the world, he might 



22 DISCOURSE ON 

dispense with this part of the ceremony, and 
act as Lord of his own institution in this, as he 
had done before in the case of the sabbath. At 
any rate, as it seems probable that he ate the 
passover at this time, and that he died about 
the time the Jews offered theirs, it may be fully 
presumed that he left nothing undone toward 
a due performance of the rite, which the pre- 
* sent necessity required, or the law of God could 
demand. 

The objection, that our Lord and his disci- 
ples appear to have sat or reclined at table all 
the time they ate what is supposed above to 
have been the passover, contrary to the paschal 
institution, which required them to eat it stand- 

t , with their staves in their hands, their loins 
girded, and their shoes on, cannot be considered 
as having any great weight in it ; for though 
the terms aveneae (Matt, xxvi, 20) and avenetro 
(Luke xxii, 14) are used in reference to their 
eating that evening, and these words signify 
reclining at table, or on a couch, as is the cus- 
tom of the Orientals, it does not follow that they 
must necessarily be restrained to that meaning; 
nor does it appear that this part of the ceremo- 
ny was much attended to, perhaps not at all, 
in the latter days of the Jewish church. 

IV. He did eat a passover of his own insti- 



THE EUCHARIST. 23 

tuting, but widely different from that eaten by 
the Jews. 

4. Mr. Toinard, in his Greek Harmony of 
the Gospels, strongly contends that our Lord 
did not eat what is commonly called the pass- 
over this year, but another, of a mystical kind. 
His chief arguments are the following : — 

It is indubitably evident, from the text of St. 
John, that the night on the beginning of which 
our Lord supped with his disciples, and insti- 
tuted the holy sacrament, was not that on which 
the Jews celebrated the passover, but the pre- 
ceding evening, on which the passover could 
not be legally offered. The conclusion is evi- 
dent from the following passages : John xiii, 1 . 
Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus 
knowing, &c, ver. 2. And supper (not the pas- 
chal, but an ordinary supper) being ended, <Scc, 
ver. 27. That thou doest, do quickly, ver. 28. 
Now no one at the table knew for what intent 
he spake this, ver. 29. For some thought, be- 
cause Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said 
unto him, Buy what we have need of against 
the feast, <fcc, chap, xviii, 28. Then led they 
Jesus from Caiaphas to the hall of judgment, 
and it was early ; and they themselves went 
not into the judgment hall, lest they should be 
defiled, but that they might eat the passover, 



24 DISCOURSE ON 

chap, xix, 14. And it was the preparation of 
the passover, and about the sixth hour. Now, 
as it appears that at this time the disciples 
thought our Lord had ordered Judas to go and 
bring what was necessary for the passover, and 
they were then supping together, it is evident 
it was not the paschal lamb on which they were 
supping ; and it is as evident, from the unwill- 
ingness of the Jews to go into the hall of judg- 
ment, that they had not as yet eaten the pass- 
over. These words are plain, and can be taken 
in no other sense without offering them the 
greatest violence. 

Mr. Toinard, having found that our Lord was 
crucified on the sixth day of the week, (Friday,) 
during the paschal solemnity, in the thirty-third 
year of the vulgar era, and that the paschal moon 
of that year was not in conjunction with the sun 
till the afternoon of Thursday, the 1 9th of March, 
and that the new moon could not be seen in Ju- 
dea until the following day, (Friday,) concluded 
that the intelligence of the (pacrcg, or appearance 
of the new moon, could not be made by the wit- 
nesses to the beth din, or senate, sooner than 
Saturday morning, the 21st of March. That 
the first day of the first Jewish month, Nisa?i, 
could not commence that thirty-third year 
sooner than the setting of the sun on Friday, 



THE EUCHARIST. 25 

March 20th; and, consequently, that Friday, 
April 3d, on which Christ died, was the 14th 
of Nisan, (not the 15th,) the day appointed by 
law for the celebration of the passover. All * 
these points he took care to have ascertained 
by the nicest astronomical calculations, in which 
he was assisted by a very eminent astronomer 
and mathematician, Bullialdus (Mr. Bouilleau.) 

These two last opinions, apparently contra- 
dictory, and which alone, of all those offered 
on the subject, deserve consideration, may be 
brought to harmonize. That Jesus ate the pass- 
over with his disciples the evening before the 
Jews ate theirs, seems pretty clearly proved 
from the text of St. Luke, and the arguments ' 
founded on that text. 

All that is assumed there, to make the whole 
consistent, is, that the Jews, that year, held the 
passover both on the 13th and 14th of Nisan, 
because of the reasons already assigned ; and 
that therefore Peter and John, who were em- 
ployed on this business, might have got the 
blood legally sprinkled by the hands of a priest, 
which was all that was necessary to the legal- 
ity of the rite. 

But, secondly, should it appear improbable 
that such double celebration took place at this 
time, and that our Lord could not have eaten 



26 DISCOURSE ON 

' the passover that year with his disciples, as he 
died on the very hour on which the paschal 
lamb was slain, and consequently before he 
^ould legally eat the passover ; how then can 
the text of St. Luke be reconciled with this 
fact ? *l answer, With the utmost ease, by sub- 
stituting a passover for the passover ; and 
simply assuming that our Lord at this time 
y instituted the holy eucharist in 'place of the 
* paschal lamb ; and thus it will appear he ate 
a passover with his disciples the evening before 
his death, viz., the mystical passover, or sacra- 
ment of his body and blood ; and that this was 
the passover which he so ardently longed to 
eat with his disciples before he suffered. This 
is the opinion of Mr. Toinard, and, if granted, 
solves every difficulty. Thus the whole con- 
troversy is brought into a very narrow compass : 
our Lord did eat a passover with his disciples 
some short time before he died ; — the question 
is, What passover did he eat — the regular legal 
passover, or a mystical one? That he ate a 
passover, is, I think, demonstrated ; but whether 
the literal or mystical one is a matter of doubt. 
On this point good and learned men may inno- 
cently hesitate and differ : but, on either hypo- 
thesis, the text of the evangelists is unimpeach- 
able, and all shadow of contradiction done away ; 



THE EUCHARIST. 27 

far the question then rests on the peculiar mean- > 
ing of names and words. On this hypothesis 
the preparation of the passover must be consi- 
dered as implying no more than — 1. Pr^virling 
a convenient room — 2. Bringing water for the 
baking on the following day, because on that 
day the bringing of the water would have been 
unlawful — 3. Making inquisition for the leaven, , 
that every thing of this kind might be removed 
from the house where the passover was to be 
eaten, according to the very strict and awful 
command of God, Exod. xii, 15-20 ; xxiii, 15, 
and xxxiv, 25. These, it is probable, were the 
acts of preparation which the disciples were 
commanded to perform, (Matt, xxvi, 18 ; Mark 
xiv, 13, 14; Luke xxii, 8-11,) and which, fin 
their arrival at the city, they punctually exe- 
cuted : see Matt, xxvi, 19 ; Mark xiv, 16 ; Luke 
xxii, 13. Thus everything was prepared, and 
the holy sacrament instituted, which should, in 
the Christian church, take place of the Jewish 
passover, and continue to be a memorial of the 
sacrifice which Christ was about to make by his 
death on the cross : for as the paschal lamb had 
showed forth his death till he came, this death 
fulfilled the design of the rite, and sealed up the 
vision and prophecy. 

All preparations for the true paschal sacrifice 



** 



DISCOURSE ON 

being now made, Jesus was immediately be- 
trayed, shortly after apprehended, and in a few 
hours expired upon the cross. It is, therefore, 
i *ei* T ' ^"ely that he did not literally eat the pass- 
ever mis year ; and may I not add, that it is 
v more than probable that the passover was not 
eaten in the whole land of Judea on this occa- 

* sion. The rending of the veil of the temple, 
(Matt, xxvii, 51 ; Mark xv, 38 ; Luke xxiii, 45,) 
the terrible earthquake, (Matt, xxvii, 51-54,) 
the dismal and unnatural darkness which was 
over the whole land of Judea from the sixth 
hour (twelve o'clock) to the ninth hour, (i. e., 

A three o'clock in the afternoon,) with all the 

* other prodigies which took place on this awful 
occasion, we may naturally conclude were more 
than sufficient to terrify and appal this guilty 
nation, and totally to prevent the celebration of 
the paschal ceremonies. Indeed, the time in 
which killing the sacrifices, and sprinkling the 
blood of the lambs should have been performed, 
was wholly occupied with these most dreadful 
portents ; and it would be absurd to suppose 
that, under such terrible evidences of the divine 
indignation, any religious ordinances or festive 
preparations could possibly have taken place. 

My readers will probably be surprised to see 
the preceding opinions so dissentient among 



THE EUCHARIST. 29 

themselves, and the plausible reasons by which 
they are respectively supported, where each 
seems by turns to prevail. When I took up the 
question, I had no suspicion that it was ^^m,-' 
bered with so many difficulties. These 1 now 
feel and acknowledge ; nevertheless, I thint* 
the plan of reconciling the texts of the evangel- 
ists, particularly St. Luke and St. John, which*, 
I have adopted above, is natural, and I am in 
hopes will not appear altogether unsatisfactory 
to my readers. On the subject, circumstanced 
as it is, hypothesis alone can prevail ; for in- 
dubitable evidence and certainty cannot be 
obtained. The morning of the resurrection is^ 
probably, the nearest period in which accurate 
information on this point can be expected. 
" Je suis trompi" says Bouilleau, " si cette ques- 
tion pent Hre jamais bien eclaircie." — If I be not 
mistaken, this question will never be thoroughly 
understood. 



DISCOURSE ON THE EUCHARIST. 

Do this in remembrance of me, is a command 
by which our blessed Lord has put both the • 
affection and piety of his disciples to the test. 
If they love him they will keep his command^* 
ments ; for to them that love, his commandments 
are not grievous. It is a peculiar excellence of 
the gospel economy, that all the duties it en- 
joins become the highest privileges to those 
that obey. 

Among the ordinances prescribed by the gos- 
pel, that commonly called the sacrament of the 
Lord's supper has ever held a distinguished 
place ; and the church of Christ, in all ages, 
has represented the due religious celebration 
of it as a duty incumbent on every soul that 
professed faith in Christ Jesus, and sought for 
salvation through his blood alone. Hence, it 
was ever held in the highest estimation and 
reverence ; and the great High Priest of his 
church showed, by more than ordinary influ- 
ences of his blessed Spirit on the souls of the 



32 DISCOURSE ON 

faithful, that they had not mistaken his mean- 
ing, nor believed in vain ; while, by eating of 
that bread, and drinking of that cup, they en- 
deavoured to show forth his death, and realize 
the benefits to be derived from it. 

If Jesus, in his sacrificial character, met with 
opposition from the inconsiderate, the self- 

| righteous, and the profane, no wonder that an 
ordinance, instituted by himself for the express 
purpose of keeping up a continual memorial by 
means of the most expressive emblems, of his 
having died for our offences, was decried, neg- 
lected, and abused. The spirit of innovation 
and error left no means untried to pervert its 

^meaning, restrain its influence, and decry its 
effects ; but the true followers of God overcame 
all by the blood of the Lamb, and by their tes- 
timony ; and for holding fast faith and a good 
conscience in reference to this sacred ordi- 
nance, how many of them were cruelly tortured ; 
and not a few, on this very account, gloriously 
maintaining the truth, were obliged to seal it 
with their blood. 

The sanguinary persecutions, raised up in 
this land against the Protestants, in the days of 
that weak and worthless queen, Mary I., were 
levelled principally against the right use of this 
ordinance. It was not because our fathers re- 



THE EUCHARIST. 33 

fused to obey the then constituted authorities 
of the state, that they were so cruelly and bar- 
barously oppressed and murdered ; it was not 
because they were not subject to every ordi- 
nance of man, not only for wrath, (for fear of 
punishment,) but for conscience' sake, that they 
had trial of cruel mockings ; but because they 
believed concerning this divine ordinance as*' 
Jesus Christ had taught them, and boldly re- 
fused to prefer the ignorance of man to the wis** 
dom and authority pf God. 

The abomination which maketh desolate had 
got into the holy place : the state, corrupt and 
languid in every department, had resigned the 
administration of all affairs into the hands of «& 
church illiterate and profligate beyond all ex- 
ample and precedent. In this awful situation 
of affairs, the genuine followers of God showed 
themselves at once, not in opposition to a tyran- 
nical government, but in opposition to a corrupt 
and unprincipled priesthood. They would not, 
because they could not believe, that a little flour 
and water kneaded together, and baked in the 
oven, were the body and blood of the Saviour 
of the world — the God who made the heavens 
and the earth, and the only object of religious 
adoration ! — " Away," said the murderous 
priests, " with such fellows from the earth ! 
3 



34 DISCOURSE ON 

they are not fit to live : let them have judgment 
without mixture of mercy, and anticipate their 
final damnation by perishing in the flames !" 
And they, rather than defile their conscience, 
or^deny their God, embraced death in its most 
terrific forms ; and, through the medium of 
Smithfield flames, were hurried into a distin- 
guished rank among the noble army of martyrs! 

" Godlike men ! how firm they stood ! 
Seeding their country with their blood." 

In this most honourable contest, besides the 
vast number who suffered by fines, confiscation, 
and imprisonment, not less than two hundred 
and seventy-seven persons fell a sacrifice to the 
ignorance, bigotry, and malevolence of the pa- 
pal hierarchy. Among these were one arch- 
bishop, four bishops, twenty-one clergymen, 

eight LAY GENTLEMEN, eighty-four TRADESMEN, 

one hundred husbandmen, fifty -five women, and 
four children, who were all burnt alive, and 
this with circumstances of cruelty and horror, 
which surpassed the bloodiest persecutions of 
pagan antiquity ! But they conquered, and were 
glorious in their death ; and have handed down 
to us, uncorrupted, those living oracles and that 
holy worship which were their support and ex- 
ultation in the cloudy and dark day. Do their 



THE EUCHARIST. 35 

descendants lay these things to heart, and prize 
that holy ordinance, on account of whic& their 
forefathers suffered the loss of all things ? Are 
we indifferent whether, on this point, orthodoxy 
or heterodoxy prevail 1 Or, what is of infinitely 
worse consequence, have we so neglected or 
misused this holy ordinance, until we have at^ 
length ceased to discern the Lord's body ? Is it 
not to be feared that the sacrament of the Lord's 
supper has fallen into disuse with many, be- 
cause they do not understand its nature and 
moral obligation ? And can it be deemed invi- 
dious to express a fear that, possibly, much of 
the blame attaches to the ministers of the gos- 
pel, because they are remiss in urging the com- 
mandment of their Lord, and showing the high 
privileges of those who conscientiously obey it? 
To remedy this defect, as far as it relates to 
myself, I shall endeavour to set before the 
reader some observations on 

I. The nature and design of this institution. 

II. The manner of its celebration. 

III. The proper meaning of the different epi- 
thets given to it in the Scriptures, and by the 
primitive church. And, 

IV. A few reasons to enforce the due and 
religious celebration of it, principally deduced 
from the preceding observations. 



36 DISCOURSE ON 

1. As our blessed Lord celebrated this ordi- 
nance^ immediately after his eating what St. 
Luke calls the passover with his disciples, and 
for which I shall, by and by, prove he intended 
it'fb be the substitute ; it may be necessary to 
say a few words on that ancient rite, in order 
the more particularly to discern the connection 
subsisting between them, and the reference they 
have to each other. 

The passover (ntt pesach) was a sacrifice 
ordained by the Lord in memory of Jehovah's 
passing over (according to the import of the 
word) the houses of the Israelites, when he 
destroyed all the first-born in the land of Egypt ; 
and was certainly designed to prefigure not only 
the true paschal lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ, 
who was sacrificed for us, (1 Cor. v, 7,) but also 
the reception which those might expect who 
should flee for refuge to lay hold on the hope 
set before them, by the sprinkling of the blood 
of Jesus. As this is a point of considerable 
importance, in reference to a right understand- 
ing of the nature and design of the Lord's sup- 
per, it may be necessary to show more particu- 
larly, both from the Scriptures and the ancient 
Jewish and Christian writers, that the paschal 
lamb was considered by them as a sacrifice of 
a piacular nature. 



THE EUCHARIST. 37 

God had required that all sacrifices* shquld 
Be brought to the tabernacle, or temple, and 
there offered to him ; and this was particularly 
enjoined in respect to the passover: so Deut. 
xvi, 5, " Thou shalt not sacrifice the passover 
within any of thy gates, but at the place which 
the Lord thy God chooseth to place his name 
in, there thou shalt sacrifice." And this divine 
injunction was more particularly attended toin 
the case of the passover than in any other sacri- 
fice ; so that the ancient Jews themselves have 
remarked that, even in the time when high 
places were permitted, they dared not to sacri- 
fice the passover anywhere but in that place 
where God had registered his name. Thus 
Maimonides, in Halachah Pesach, cap. 1. Dr. 
Cudworth, who has written excellently on this 
subject, has proved at large from the Scriptures 
and the ancient Jewish doctors, that the pass- 
over was ever considered by them as a sacrifi- 
cial rite. To which may be added, that Jose- 
phus considered it in the same light, by calling 
it Qvata, a sacrifice ; and Trypho, the Jew, 
in his conference with Justin Martyr, speaks 
of rrpo6arov rov nao'xa Ovecv, sacrificing the 
paschal lamb. Maimonides, in the tract above 
referred to, written expressly on this subject, 
speaks of the lamb as a victim, and of the so- 



38 ' DISCOURSE ON 

lemnity itself as a sacrifice. Another of their 
best writers, Rab. Bechai, (Com. in Lev. ii, 11,) 
says, that " the paschal sacrifice was insti- 
tuted in order to expiate the guilt contracted by 
trie idolatrous practices of the Israelites in 
Egypt.". And St. Paul puts the matter beyond 
dispute, by saying, to na<7%a rjficov vireg rj(iG)v 
eBvOrj xpiorog, our passover, Christ, is sacri- 
ficed for us ; v~eq TjfjLGJv, on our account, or in 
our stead. It is worthy of remark, that when 
the passover was first instituted, a lamb was 
slain in every family, not by the hands of a 
priest, for that would have been impossible, as 
only one existed who had been divinely ap- 
pointed ; but by the first-born in every family, 
who were all considered as priests, till the con- 
secration of the whole tribe of Levi to this of- 
fice ; in consequence of which the first-born 
were redeemed, i. e., exempted from this ser- 
vice, by paying a certain sum to the sanctuary. 
Justin Martyr, in his conference with Trypho, 
the Jew, maintains this sentiment in a very 
strenuous manner, showing, from the Scrip- 
tures, and the nature of this sacrificial rite, that 
it was a type of Christ crucified for the sin of 
the world. One circumstance which he asserts, 
without contradiction from his learned oppo- 
nent, is, I think, worthy of notice, whether the 



THE EUCHARIST. 39 

reader may think it of much consequence to the 
present subject or not, ' This lamb," says he, 
" which was to be entirely roasted, was a sym- 
bol of the punishment of the cross, which was 
inflicted on Christ. To yap oTrrcoiievov 7Tpo6a- 
rov, axrwiarr^oiiEvov ofjioaog tg) G)(r\\iari rov 
oravpov, onrarac. ~Etg yap opdtog oieXtaKog 
Sianepovarai arro tljv Karcjrarcjv fiepuv \*>£>XQ l 
T7]g K6(paXrjg, icai, eig ixakiv Kara to fjLera(f)pevov, 
G) TTpoaaprojvrac /cat at X £L 9 e S T0V npodaTov^ 
' For the lamb which was roasted was so 
placed as to resemble the figure of a cross : 
with one spit it was pierced longitudinally, from 
the tail to the head ; with another it was trans- 
fixed through the shoulders, so that the fore legs 
became extended.' " Vid. Just. Martyris Opera 
ah Oberthur, vol. ii, p. 106. To some this may 
appear trifling ; but it has seemed right to the 
wisdom of God to tipify the most interesting 
events by emblems of comparatively less mo- 
ment. He is sovereign of his own ways, and 
he chooses often to confound the wisdom of the 
wise, not only by the foolishness of preaching, 
but also by the various means he employs to bring 
about the great purposes of his grace and justice. 
The manner of this roasting was certainly sin- 
gular; and of the fact we cannot doubt, for Try pho 
himself neither attempted to ridicule nor deny it. 



40 DISCOURSE OX 

But while I am considering the testimony of 
Justin Martyr, there is another passage still 
more extraordinary, which I wish to place be- 
fore the reader. In his dispute with this learned 
and captious Jew, he asserts that the Jews, 
through their enmity to the Christian religion, 
had expunged several passages from the sacred 
writings, which bore testimony to Christ, and 
to his vicarious sufferings and death ; and of 
'which (at the challenge of Trypho, who denied 
the fact) he produces several instances, among 
which the following is the most remarkable : — 
When Ezra celebrated the passover, as is re- 
lated Ezra vi, 19, &c, Justin says he spoke 
as follows : — Kat etrrev Eerdpac ro) Xau, rovro 

TO TCa,GX a ° GUTTJp 7]jJ,G)V, Kat 7] Kara&VJT) 7JflG)V 

Kat eav dtavorjdrjre, Kat avadrj vfutcdv em rrjv 
Kapdtav, ort \ieXko\iev avrov ranetvovv ev 
crjfietG), Kat \iera ravra eXmaofiev en' avrov, 
ov \ie eo7\\ii^Qr\ o ronog ovrog etc; rov anavra 
Xpovov, Xrryet o Qeog rav dwajxew . Eav 6e 
\ir\ ntg'evarjre avro), firjde etg:aKovar\re rov 
KTjpvyjjLaroc avrov, eoeode ent%ap\±a rotg eOveot. 
" And Ezra spoke unto the people, and said, — 
* This passover is our Saviour and our Re- 
fuge : and if ye shall understand and ponder 
it in your heart, that we shall afflict him for a 
* aign ; and if afterward we shall believe on him, 



THE EUCHARIST. 41 

this place shall not be desolated for ever, saith 
the Lord of hosts. But if ye will not believe 
on him, nor hear his preaching, ye shall be a 
laughing stock to the Gentiles.' " Vid. Just. 
Martyris Opera ab Oberthur, vol. ii, p. 196. 
This, Justin asserts, the Jews had blotted out 
of the Septuagint translation ; and if so, they 
took care to expunge it from the Hebrew also ; 
for at present it exists in neither. Allowing 
this passage to be authentic, it is a full proof 
of my position, that the paschal lamb was an 
expiatory sacrifice, and that it prefigured the 
death and atonement of Jesus Christ. But of 
this the proofs already produced are sufficient ; 
particularly that from St. Paul, independently 
of the quotation from Justin Martyr. 

It is also worthy of remark, that even after 
the consecration of the tribe of Levi, and the 
redemption of the first-born, it was the custom 
for the people to kill their own passovers ; but 
the sacrificial act, the sprinkling of the blood, 
belonged solely to the priests. " Five things," 
says Rab. Abarbanel, " were to be done by those 
who brought a sacrifice, and five things by the 
priest. The first five were, 1. Laying on of 
hands. 2. Killing. 3. Flaying. 4. Cutting 
up. 5. Washing the intestines. Those done 
by the priests were, 1 . Receiving the blood into 



42 DISCOURSE ON 

a vessel. 2. Sprinkling it upon the altar. 
3. Putting the fire upon the altar. 4. Laying 
the wood in order upon the fire. 5. Putting 
the pieces of the victim in order on the wood." 
Here we see the part which both the people 
and the priests took in their sacrifices ; and 
these circumstances will give us additional light 
in another part of this discourse : only we must 
observe, that the paschal lamb was never cut up, 
or burnt ; it was roasted whole, and eaten by 
the offerer and his family. 

The manner of celebrating the paschal sacri- 
fice is particularly detailed in the Mishna : " A 
monument of such antiquity as cannot," says 
Dr. Cudworth, " be distrusted in these rights." 
Nothing, say the rabbins, was killed before the 
morning sacrifice, and after the evening sacri- 
fice nothing but the passover. The evening 
sacrifice was usually killed between the eighth 
and ninth hour, i. e., half an hour after two in 
the afternoon, and offered between the ninth 
and tenth, i. e., half an hour after three. But 
in the evening of the passover the daily sacrifice 
was killed an hour sooner ; and after that be- 
gan the killing of the passover, which was to 
be done between the two evenings, E^i^n yo 
been hadrbayeem, Exod. xii, 6 ; the first of these 
began at noon, from the sun's declination toward 



THE EUCHARIST. 43 

the west, and the second at sunset. But the 
paschal lamb might be killed before the daily- 
sacrifice, provided there was a person to stir 
the blood and keep it from coagulating, till the 
blood of the daily sacrifice was sprinkled ; for 
that was always sprinkled first. The lambs, 
says the Mishna, were always killed by three 
several companies : this they founded on Exod. 
xii, 6 : And the whole assembly of the congre- 
gation of Israel shall kill it in the evening, 
understanding the words Jfip kahal, rns edeth, 
and i&ntt^ yishrael, as implying three different 
companies ; by the first they meant the priests, 
by the second the Levites, and by the third the 
people at large : when once the court was full,* 
they shut to the doors, and the priests stood all 
in their ranks, with round-bottomed vessels in 
their hands, some of gold, and some of silver, 
to receive the blood. Those who held the 
golden vessels stood in a rank by themselves, 
as did those who held the silver vessels. 
These vessels had no rim at the bottom, to pre- 
vent them from being set on the ground, lest 
the blood should congeal in them. The priests 
then took the blood and handed it from one to 
another, till it came to him who stood next the 
altar, who sprinkled it at the bottom of the altar. 
After the blood was sprinkled, the lamb was 



44 DISCOURSE ON 

hung up and flayed. The hanging up was 
deemed essentially necessary, insomuch that if 
there was no convenience to suspend it, two 
men, standing with their hands on each other's 
shoulders, had the lamb suspended to their arms 
till the skin was flayed ofT. When flayed, it 
was opened, and the inwards taken out and laid 
on the altar ; and then the owner took up the 
lamb with its skin, and carried it to his own 
house. The first company being dismissed, 
the second came in, and the door was shut as 
before ; and after these the third company : and 
for every company they sung anew the hallel, 
iJn or paschal hymn, which began with Psalm 
cxiii, praise ye the Lord, n h "*liln halleluyah, and 
ended with Psalm cxviii. This singing con- 
tinued the whole time employed in killing the 
lambs. When they ended the hallel, they be- 
gan it a second time, and so on till the third 
time ; but it was never sung entirely the third 
time, as the priests had generally finished by 
the time they came to the beginning of Psalm 
cxvi., " I love the Lord, because he hath heard 
my voice," &c. When the lamb was brought 
home, they roasted it on a spit made of the 
wood of the pomegranate tree ; for iron was 
prohibited, and also all wood that emitted moist- 
ure when brought near to the fire ; but as the 



I THE EUCHARIST. 45 

wood of the pomegranate tree was free of 
moisture, it was commanded to be used on this 
occasion. See Mishna, by Surenhusius, vol. ii, 
p. 135. Tract, ti^HCS Pesachim. These are 
the most essential matters mentioned in the 
Mishna, relative to this solemnity, some of 
which tend to cast much light on our Lord's * 
words and conduct on this occasion. 

That the holy eucharist was instituted ifi 
place of the passover has been largely proved by 
many, as also that baptism succeeded to circum- 
cision. Dr. Waterland, who has summed up the 
opinions of learned men on this subject, observes, 
that there are resembling circumstances common 
to the Jewish and Christian passover, which 
may be divided into two kinds : — 1. Some re- 
lating to the things themselves — 2. Some to 
the phrases and forms made use of in both. 

1. Of the first sort are these : — 1. The pass- 
over was of divine appointment, and so was the 
eucharist — 2. The passover was a sacrament, 
and so is the eucharist — 3. The passover was 
a memorial of a great deliverance from temporal 
bondage ; the eucharist is a memorial of a greater 
deliverance from spiritual bondage — 4. The 
passover prefigured the death of Christ before 
it was accomplished ; the eucharist represents, 
or figures out, that death now past — 5. The 



46 DISCOURSE ON 

passover was a kind of faderal rite between 
God and man ; so is the eucharist, as it points 
out the blood of the sacrifice offered for the 
"ratification of the covenant between God and 
man — 6. As no person could partake of the 
paschal lamb before he was circumcised, (Exod. 
xii, 43-48,) so, among the early followers of 
God, no person was permitted to come to the 
eucharist till he had been baptized — 7. As the 
Jews were obliged to come to the passover free 
from all defilements, unless in case of burying 
the dead, which, though a defilement, was ne- 
vertheless unavoidable, (Num. ix, 6, 9,) so the 
Holy Scripture commands every man to ex- 
amine himself before he attempts to eat of this 
bread, or drink of this cup ; and to purge out 
the old leaven of malice and wickedness, 1 Cor. 
xi, 27-29 — 8. As the neglect or contempt of the 
passover subjected a man to be cut off from Is- 
rael, (Exod. xii, 15; Num. ix, 14,) so a con- 
tempt' and rejection of, at least, the thing signi- 
fied by the holy eucharist, viz., the atoning 
sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, must necessarily 
exclude every man from the benefits of Christ's 
passion and death — 9. As the passover was to 
continue as long as the Jewish law was in 
force, so the eucharist is to continue till Christ 
shall come to judge the world. 



THE EUCHARIST. 47 

2. The second sort of resembling circum- 
stances concerns theparticular/br^^ and phrases 
made use of in the institution— 1. In the pas- 
chal supper the master of the house took bread, 
and gave thanks to God, who had provided it 
for the sustenance of man. Our Lord copied 
this circumstance precisely in the institution or 
the eucharist — 2. It was also a custom for the 
master of the house to break the bread, either 
before or after the benediction offered to God ; 
that our Lord copied this custom, every reader 
knows — 3. The master of the house distributed 
this broken bread, for it does not appear that 
the family were permitted to take it themselves ; 
so our Lord, after having broken the bread, 
gave it to the disciples, saying, Take, eat, 
&c. — 4. In the paschal feast the master was 
accustomed to take a cup of wine, and pronounce 
a benediction to God, or thanksgiving over it, 
after which it was termed the cup of blessing; 
to this circumstance St. Paul particularly al- 
ludes, when he says, " The cup of blessing 
which we bless, is it not the communion of the 
blood of Christ?" 1 Cor. x, 16—5. At the in- 
stitution of the passover it was said, " The blood 
shall be to you for a token upon the houses 
where you are ; and when I see the blood, I 
will pass over you," &c, Exod. xii, 13. The 



48 DISCOURSE ON 

blood was a token or sign of the covenant, or 
agreement, then made between God and them, 
and ratified partly by pouring out the blood of 
the paschal lamb, and partly by feeding on the 
flesh of this sacrifice. In the institution of the 
eucharist, our Lord says, " This cup is the new 
covenant in my blood, which is shed for you 
and for many, for the remission of sins." The 
cup, here, is put for wine ; and covenant is put 
for the token or sign of the covenant. The 
wine as representing Christ's blood, answers to 
the blood of the passover, which was typical of 
the blood of our Lord ; and the remission of sins 
here, answers to the passing over there and pre- 
serving from death — 6. At the paschal feast 
there was a declaration of the great things which 
God had done for that people ; and our Lord 
makes use of the eucharist to declare and point 
out the great mercy of God in our redemption ; 
for it shows forth the Lord's death, (and, con- 
sequently, all the benefits to be derived from it,) 
till he himself shall come to judge the world — 
7. At the paschal solemnity they were accus- 
tomed to sing a hymn of praise to God, and 
this part of their conduct our Lord and his dis- 
ciples exactly copied : " And when they had 
sung a hymn, they departed," &c. 

The many resembling circumstances, real and 



THE EUCHARIST. 49 

verbal, abundantly show that this holy eucharist 
was, in a great measure, copied from the pas- 
chal feast, and was intended to supply its place, 
only heightening the design, and improving the 
application. See Dr. Waterland's Review of 
the Doctrine of the Eucharist, p. 64, &c. 

Having now proved that the paschal lamb 
was a sacrifice, and seen that it prefigured the 
atonement made by Christ, our passover ; and 
that in his death, and the circumstances attend- 
ing it, the whole typical reference of that so- 
lemnity was not only verified, but fulfilled : and 
having also seen that it was in reference to the 
great atonement typified by the passover, and 
also that it was in the place of that ancient or- 
dinance, that our Lord instituted the holy sacra- 
ment of his last supper ; I shall now, more 
particularly, 

II. Consider this divine institution, and the 
manner of celebrating it. 

To do this in the most effectual manner, I 
think it necessary to set down the text of three 
evangelists, who have transmitted the whole 
account, collated with that part of St. Paul's 
First Epistle to the Corinthians, which speaks of 
the same subject, and which, he assures us, he 
received by divine revelation. It may seem 
strange that although John (chap, xiii, 1-38) 
4 



50 



DISCOURSE OX 



o 
o 


Verse 23. The Lord 
Jesus, the same night in 
which he was betrayed, 
took bread ; 

Verse 24. And when 
he had given thanks, (Kac 
evxapig-rjaac, i. e., to 
God,) he brake it, and 
said, Take, eat ; this is 


c 
© 
M 

o 

12 

o 

* 

5 


i 

o 

GO 

§ 
M 


© 
2 

o 

© 
© 
c 
ca 

-S 
g 

© 
a 


i— i 
X! 

H 

3 


Verse 19. And he took 
bread, and gave thanks, 
(evxaptg-naac, i. e., to 
God,) and brake it, and 
gave unto them, saying : 

This is my body, which 
is given for you : 

This do in remem- 
brance of me. 


> 


Verse 22. And as they 
did eat, Jesus took bread, 
and blessed, (evXoynoac, 
blessed God,) and brake 
it, and gave to them, and 
said, Take, eat : this is 
my body. 


> 

X 
X 

H 


Verse 26. And as they 
were eating, Jesus took 
bread and blessed it, (tcai 
tv%oynaag, and blessed 
God,) and brake it, and 
gave it to the disciples, 
and said, Take, eat : this 
is my body. 












?>> SO 
CO -g 

II 

.fc-r 



s ° . 

to 5^-2 

ts ~ 



c^2§ be 



C* 



*tS "S -< 

-§| 
^* §• 

fc s £ 

^§ * 



• co 
ft ~ 

o ~£ 
.. ° © 

W ^ ff ft 
© 05 oo 



ed 



£ 



a -isxj 



rS3 © 



oft.. 

N g g> 

© © '£L 

fl> "^ CO 

^ 8 ** 

-22 © 
c3 ft 

O ca o -faj j-. 
T3 g § £ Id 

c ^ ^ £ >^ 

CO c c © _ 

© — S § 

S 3 h U ' 

> « © g s *j 

-^ £ ^ ^ • 



»/ ft ^ o « 
© © g,S 

3-5 g.S 



THE EUCHARIST. 



51 



> © 03 

N ^B 

.23 b © 

3 B >v ~ 

° i^- • 

■2 ~£ OT G H 

h!5^ 



*-0 

© o • 

b o a 

■a p 






B B 
O 03 • 






»£ 



H3 co £ co 



03 ^ 3 _ 

inn ® 



i .J3 o 



> 5 O B 
B^ 2 



B t> 



2 « 

« B 
B B 






i .-b -~ o 

53 B O 

©,£ bs 

S -S 
'>m3 



■5^ e£ 



^ -s 



-U CO 

*j O -B 
B B "5 

3 .*> O 

JN H J3 



- J B 
© ^ 03 

H !> 5 B 

J5 K* *J B 

B 4-> <— , *-» B rB 



^ l>M« l, IE' 



£ .5° 



B ,H «3 

"S -^ Ph 

B.S ^ 



5 f~B bD 
^."B B 

OT3 i'r5 









2 8 



O 

bJO 



2 o 



*8 CO 

""» B 
.8 ^ 
" 03 
ng -* 

8 - 
«£> 4 G 

■Si * 

8 -: § 

* §<£ 

is. u u 

s <o y 

j1| 

^ 8* § 
v. ■ 5 -* 

§ 8 r 

° 8 

' 2 « " 

w S S 



I ^ 



m 






§ p'5^ 

• b£ fc 



03 
^ ■ 



73 . 

03 c 



a 

GO - — w 

03 CO > BU g 



03 W 03 -a ' 

J ^B C ^ 
^^ cd o 

'Bis -I 

<* So 

• B 5 ^* rt 
OS S go co 
CO > © 

© "S w © • &■ 

B^^3 

; 15 o 



© © 
> S 



^ ^< 



© T3 © O 

B J ^- 

© B 

K**^ © © O 

S s^ 

B 



ri • 



© 'P 0) o 

sjS ^- 

© B 

K" © © o 

•♦^ -^> k=; 



52 DISCOURSE ON 

mentions all the circumstances preceding the 
holy supper, and, from chap, xiv, 1-36, the cir- 
cumstances which succeeded the breaking of 
the bread, and in chapters xv, xvi, and xvii, the 
discourse which followed the administration of 
the cup ; yet he takes no notice of the divine 
institution at all. This is generally accounted 
for on his knowledge of what the other three 
evangelists had written ; and on his conviction 
that their relation was true, and needed no ad- 
ditional confirmation, as the matter was amply 
established by the conjoint testimony of three 
such respectable witnesses. 

From the preceding harmonized view of this 
important transaction, as described by three 
evangelists and one apostle, we see the first 
institution, nature, and design of what has been 
since called the Lord's supper. To every 
circumstance, as set down here, and the mode 
of expression by which such circumstances are 
described, we should pay the deepest attention. 

1. As they were eating, (Matt, xxvi, 26,) either 
an ordinary supper, or the paschal lamb, as some 
think : see the Introduction. 

2. Jesus took bread. — Of what kind 1 Unlea- 
vened bread, certainly, because there was no 
other kind to be had in all Judea at this time ; 
for this was the first day of unleavened bread, 



THE EUCHARIST. 53 

v. 17, i. e., the 14th of the month Nisan, when 
the Jews, according to the command of God, 
(Exod. xii, 15, 20 ; xxiii, 15 ; and xxxiv, 25,) 
were to purge away all leaven from their houses ; 
for he who sacrificed the passover, having Esaven 
in his dwelling, was considered to be such a 
transgressor of the divine law as could no longer 
be tolerated among the people of God ; and, 
therefore, was to be cut off from the congrega- 
tion of Israel. Leo, of Modena, who has writ- 
ten a very sensible treatise on the Customs of 
the Jews, observes, " that so strictly do some 
of the Jews observe the precept concerning the 
removal of all leaven from their houses, during 
the celebration of the paschal solemnity, that 
they either provide vessels entirely new for 
baking, or else have a set for the purpose, 
which are dedicated solely to the service of the 
passover, and never brought out on any other 
occasion." 

To this divinely-instituted custom of remov- 
ing all leaven previous to the paschal solemnity, 
St. Paul evidently alludes, 1 Cor. v, 6-8, 
" Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth 
the whole lump ? Purge out therefore the old 
leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are 
unleavened. For even Christ, our Passover, is 
sacrificed for us ; therefore let us keep the feast, 



54 DISCOURSE ON 

not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of 
malice and wickedness, but with the unlea- 
vened bread of sincerity and truth." 

Now, if any respect should be paid to the 
primitive institution, in the celebration of this 
divine ordinance, then unleavened, unyeasted 
bread should be used. In every sign or type, 
the thing signifying or pointing out that which 
is beyond itself, should either have certain pro- 
perties, or be accompanied with certain circum- 
stances, as expressive as possible of the thing 
signified. Bread, simply considered in itself, 
may be an emblem apt enough of the body of 
our Lord Jesus, which was given for us ; but 
the design of God was evidently that it should 
not only point out this, but also the disposition 
required in those who should celebrate both the 
antetype and the type ; and this the apostle ex- 
plains to be sincerity and truth, the reverse of 
malice and wickedness. The very taste of the 
bread was instructive : it pointed out to every 
communicant, that he who came to the table of 
God with malice or ill will against any soul of 
man, or with wickedness, a profligate or sinful 
life, might expect to eat and drink judgment to 
himself, as not discerning that the Lord's body 
was sacrificed for this very purpose, that all sin 
might be destroyed ; and that sincerity, eiXitcpt- 



THE EUCHARIST, DO 

vua, such purity as the clearest light can discern 
no stain in, might be diffused through the whole 
soul ; and that truth, the law of righteousness 
and true holiness, might regulate and guide all 
the actions of life. Had the bread us%d on 
these occasions been of the common kind, it 
would have been perfectly unfit or improper to 
have communicated these uncommon significa- 
tions ; and as it was seldom used, its rare occur- 
rence would make the emblematical representa- 
tion more deeply impressive, and the sign and 
the signified have their due correspondence and 
influence. 

These circumstances considered, will it not 
appear that the use of common bread in the sacra- 
ment of the Lord's supper is highly improper ? 
He who can say, " This is a matter of no import- 
ance" may say, with equal propriety, The bread 
itself is of no importance ; and another may say, 
The wine is of no importance ; and a third may 
say, " Neither the bread nor wine is any thing, 
but as they lead to spiritual references; and the 
spiritual reference being once understood, the 
signs are useless,'" Thus we may, through af- 
fected spirituality, refine away the whole ordi- 
nance of God, and, with the letter and form of 
religion, abolish religion itself. Many have 
already acted in this way, not only to their loss, 



56 DISCOURSE ON 

but their ruin, by showing how profoundly wise 
they are above what is written. Let those, 
therefore, who consider that man shall live by 
every word which proceeds from the mouth of God, 
and who are conscientiously solicitous that each 
divine institution be not only preserved, but 
observed in all its original integrity, attend to 
this circumstance. I grant that it is probable 
that their use of unleavened bread in the sacra- 
ment of the Lord's supper may excite the sneer 
of the profane, or the pretended pity of those 
who think, in spirituality, they are above that 
which is infinitely above them ; yet while the 
conscientious followers of God dare even to be 
singular in that which is right, and are not 
ashamed of Christ and his words, they shall 
be acknowledged by him when he comes in the 
kingdom and glory of his Father. However, 
in this opinion I am not singular, as the Lutheran 
church makes use of unleavened bread to the 
present day. 

3. And blessed it. — Both St. Matthew and St 
Mark use the word evXoynoag, blessed, instead 
of evxapigrjaag, gave thanks, which is the word 
used by St. Luke and St. Paul. The terms, in 
this case, are nearly of the same import, as both 
blessing and giving thanks were used on these 
occasions. But what was it that our Lord 



THE EUCHARIST. 57 

blessed ? Not the bread, though many think the 
contrary, being deceived by the word it, which 
is improperly supplied in our version. In all the 
four places referred to above, whether the word 
blessed or gave thanks is used, it refers not to 
the bread, but to God, the dispenser of every 
good. Our Lord here conforms himself to that 
constant Jewish custom, viz., of acknowledging 
God as the author of every good and perfect 
gift, by giving thanks on taking the bread, and 
taking the cup at their ordinary meals. For 
every Jew was forbidden to eat, drink, or use 
any of God's creatures, without rendering him 
thanks, and he who acted contrary to this com- 
mand was considered as a person who was 
guilty of sacrilege. From this custom we have 
derived the decent and laudable one of saying 
grace (gratias, thanks) before and after meat. 
The Jewish form of blessing, and probably that 
which our Lord used on this occasion, none of 
my readers will be displeased to find here ; on 
taking the bread they say, 

Baruch, atta Eloheenoo, Melech ha olam, ha motse Lechem 
min haarets. 

Blessed be thou, our God, King of the universe, 
who bringest forth bread out of the earth ! 



I 58 DISCOURSE ON 

Likewise, on taking the cup, they say, 

*px\ iib &nis t£i?n ^& tnnSa ^na . 

Baruch, Eloheenoo, Melech, haolam, Bore peree haggephen. 

Blessed be our God, the King of the universe, 
the Creator of the fruit of the vine ! 

The Mohammedans copy their example, con- 
stantly saying, before and after meat, 

Bismillahi arrahmani arraheemi. 

In the name of God, the most merciful, the most 
compassionate. 

No blessing therefore of the elements is here 
intended ; they were already blessed, in being 
sent as a gift of mercy from the bountiful Lord J 
but God the sender is blessed, because of the 
liberal provision he has made for his worthless 
creatures. Blessing and touching the bread are 
merely Popish ceremonies, unauthorized either 
by Scripture, or the practice of the pure church 
of God ; necessary, of course, to them who pre- 
tend to transmute, by a kind of spiritual incan- 
tation, the bread and wine into the real body and 
blood of Jesus Christ; a measure the grossest 
in folly, and most stupid in nonsense, to which 
God, in judgment, ever abandoned the fallen 
spirit of man. What, under God, generated 



THE EUCHARiST. 59 

Protestantism ? The protestation of a few of 
his followers in 1529, against the supremacy 
of the pope, the extravagant, disgraceful, and 
impious doctrine of transubstantiation, and the 
sale of indulgences connected with it. But let 
the Protestant take care that while he rejects a 
doctrine teeming with monstrous absurdities, 
and every contradictious sentiment, he also 
avoid those acts and ridiculous rites, such as 
blessing and touching the sacred elements, by 
which it was pretended this fancied transub- 
stantiation was brought about. 

4. And brake it. — We often read in the Scrip- 
tures of breaking bread, but never of cutting it. 
The Jewish people had nothing analogous to 
our high-raised loaf: their bread was made 
broad and thin, and was consequently very 
brittle, and to divide it there was no need of a 
knife. 

The breaking of the bread I consider essen- 
tial to the proper performance of this solemn 
and significant ceremony ; because this act was 
designed by our Lord to shadow forth the wound- 
ing, piercing, and breaking of his body upon the 
cross : and as all this was essentially neces- 
sary to the making a full atonement for the sin 
of the world, so it is of vast importance that this 
apparently little circumstance, the breaking of 



60 DISCOURSE ON 

the bread, should be carefully attended to, that 
the godly communicant may have every neces- 
sary assistance to enable him to discern the 
Lord's body while engaged in this most import- 
ant and divine of all God's ordinances. But 
who does not see that one small cube of ferment- 
ed, i. e., leavened bread, previously divided from 
the mass with a knife, and separated by the 
fingers of the minister, can never answer the 
end of the institution, either as to the matter of 
the bread, or the mode of dividing it ? Man is 
naturally a dull and heedless creature, espe- 
cially in spiritual things, and has need of the 
utmost assistance of his senses, in union with 
those expressive rites and ceremonies which 
the Holy Scripture, not tradition, has sanction- 
ed, in order to enable him to arrive at spiritual 
things through the medium of earthly simili- 
tudes. 

5. He gave it unto his disciples. — Not only the 
breaking, but also the distribution of the bread 
are necessary parts of this rite. In the Romish 
Church the bread is not broken nor delivered to 
the people that they may take and eat ; but the 
consecrated wafer is put upon their tongue by 
the priest, and he is reputed the most worthy 
communicant who does not masticate, but swal- 
low it whole. 



THE EUCHARIST. 61 

u That the breaking of this bread to be distri- 
buted" says Dr. Whitby, " is a necessary part 
of this rite, is evident, first, by the continual 
mention of it by St. Paul, and all the evangel- 
ists, when they speak of the institution of this 
sacrament, which shows it to be a necessary 
part of it. 2. Christ says, Take, eat, this is my 
body broken for you, 1 Cor. xi, 24. But when 
the elements are not broken, it can be no more 
said, This is my body broken for you, than where 
the elements are not given. 3. Our Lord said, 
Do this in remembrance of me, i. e., * Eat this 
bread broken, in remembrance of my body 
broken on the cross :' now where no body 
broken, is distributed, there nothing can be eaten 
in memorial of his broken body. Lastly, the 
apostle, by saying, The bread which we break, 
is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? 
sufficiently informs us that the eating of his 
broken body is necessary to that end. 1 Cor. 
x, 10. Hence it was that this rite of distribut- 
ing bread broken continued for a thousand years ; 
and was, as Humburtus testifies, observed in 
the Roman Church in the eleventh century." 
Whitby in loco. At present the opposite is as 
boldly practised, as if the real Scriptural rite 
had never been observed in the church of Christ. 

6. This is my body. — Here it must be ob- 



62 DISCOURSE ON 

served, that Christ had nothing in .his hands at 
this time, but part of that unleavened bread 
which he and his disciples had been eating at 
supper, and therefore he could mean no more 
than this, viz., that the bread which he was 
now breaking represented his body, which, in 
the course of a few hours, was to be crucified 
for them. Common sense, unsophisticated with 
superstition and erroneous creeds ; and reason, 
unawed by the secular sword of sovereign au- 
thority, could not possibly take any other mean- 
ing than this plain, consistent, and rational one, 
out of these words. " But, says a false and 
absurd creed, Jesus meant, when he said, hoc 
est corpus meum, (this is my body,) and, hic 
est calix sanguinis mei, this is the chalice 
of my blood, that the bread and wine were sub- 
stantially changed into his body, including flesh, 
blood, bone, yea, the whole Christ, in his im- 
maculate humanity, and adorable divinity !" and 
for denying this what rivers of righteous blood 
have been shed by state persecutions, and by 
religious wars ! Well, it may be asked, " Can 
any man of sense believe, that when Christ 
took up that bread and broke it, that it was his 
own body which he held in his own hands, and 
which himself broke to pieces, and which he 
and his disciples eat ?" He who can believe 



THE EUCHARIST. 63 

such a congeries of absurdities, cannot be said 
to be a volunteer in faith : — for it is evident the 
man can neither have faith nor reason. 

Let it be observed, if any thing further is 
necessary on this subject, that the paschal lamb 
is called the passover, because it represented the ' 
destroying angel's passing over the children of 
Israel, while he slew the first-born of the Egyp- 
tians : and our Lord and his disciples call this 
lamb the passover several times in this chapter; 
by which it is demonstrably evident that they 
could mean no more than that the lamb sacri- 
ficed on this occasion was a memorial of, and 
represented the means used for, the preserva- 
tion of the Israelites from the blast of the de- 
stroying angel. 

Besides, our Lord did not say, hoc est corpus 
meum, (this is my body,) as he did not speak in 
the Latin tongue ; though as much stress has 
been laid upon this quotation from the Vulgate 
version, by the Papists, as if the original of the 
three evangelists had been written in the Latin 
language. Had he spoken in Latin, following 
the idiom of the Vulgate, he would have said, 
panis hie corpus meum significat, or, symbolum est 
corporis mei — hoc poculum sanguinem meum repre- 
sentat, or, symbolum est sanguinis mei : this bread 
signifies my body ; this cup represents my blood. 



64 DISCOURSE ON 

But let it be observed, that in the Hebrew, 
Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages there 
is no term which expresses to mean, signify, 
denote, though both the Greek and Latin abound 
with them : hence the Hebrews use a figure, 
and say, It is, for it signifies. So Gen. xli, 26, 
27, The seven kine are (i. e., represent) seven 
years. This is (represents) the bread of afflic- 
tion which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. 
Dan. vii, 24, The ten horns are (i. e., signify) 
ten kings. They drank of the spiritual Rock 
ichich followed them, and the Rock was (repre- 
sented) Christ, 1 Cor. x, 4. And following this 
Hebrew idiom, though the work is written in 
Greek, we find, in Rev. i, 20, the seven stars 
are (rej]resent)ihe angels of the seven churches : 
and the seven candlesticks are (represent) the 
seven churches. The same form of speech is 
used in a variety of places in the New Testa- 
ment, where this sense must necessarily be 
given to the word. Matt, xiii, 38, 39, The field 
is (represents) the world : the good seed are 
(represent or signify) the children of the king- 
dom : the tares are (signify) the children of the 
wicked one. The enemy is (signifies) the 
devil : the harvest is (represents) the end of the 
world : the reapers are (i. e., signify) the an- 
gels, Luke viii, 9. What might this parable be ? 



THE EUCHARIST. 65 

rig EIH r\ napadoXr] avrrj ; what does this pa- 
rable signify ? John vii, 36, rig E2TIN ovrog 
o Xoyog ; what is the signification of this say- 
ing ? John x, 6, They understood not what 
things they were, riva HN, what was the sig- 
nification of the things he had spoken to them. 
Acts x, 17, n av EIH ro ooa\ia, what this vi- 
sion might be ; properly rendered by our trans- 
lators, what this vision should mean. Gal. iv, 
24, For these are the two covenants : avrai 
yap EISIN ai 6vo diadrjfcai, these signify the 
two covenants. Luke xv, 26, He asked, n EIH 
ravra, what these things meant : see also chap, 
xviii, 36. After such unequivocal testimony 
from the sacred writings, can any person doubt 
that, this bread is my body, has any other mean- 
ing than, this represents my body ?* 

* The Latins use the verb sum, in all its forms, with a 
similar latitude of meaning; so, esse oneri ferendo, he is 
able to bear the burthen : bene esse, to live sumptu- 
ously : male esse, to live miserably : recte esse, to en- 
joy good health : est mihi fistida, I possess a flute : est 
hodic in rebus, he now enjoys a plentiful fortune. 

In Greek also, and Hebrew, it often signifies to live, to 
die, to be killed : ovk EIMI, I am dead, or a dead man. 
Matt, ii, 18, Rachel weeping for her children, on ovk 
E12I, because they were murdered. Gen. xlii, 36, Jo- 
seph is not, IM^ ^01^ Yoseph einennu, i(otrn({> ovk, 
E2TIN, Sept. Joseph is devoured by a wild beast. 
5 



66 DISCOURSE ON 

That our Lord neither spoke in Greek nor 
Latin, on this occasion, needs no proof. It was, 
most probably, in what was formerly called the 
Chaldaic, now the Syriac, that our Lord con- 
versed with his disciples. Through the provi- 
dence of God, we have complete versions of 
the gospels in this language ; and in them it is 
likely we have the precise words spoken by our 
Lord on this occasion. In Matt, xxvi, 26 and 
27, the words in the Syriac version are — 
^f vs^ CUlO) honau pagree, this is my 
body, CtND^ Q-JpJ henau demee, this is my 
blood, of which forms of speech the Greek is a 
verbal translation ; nor would any man, even 
in the present day, speaking in the same lan- 
guage, use, among the people to whom it was 
vernacular, other terms than the above to ex- 
press, this represents my body, and this repre- 
sents my blood. 

Rom. iv. 17, calling the things that are not, ay if they 
were alive. So Plutarch, in Laconicis — "This shield 
thy father always preserved : preserve thou it, or may 
thou not be" — tj fir) E20, may thou perish. 1 Tim. i, 7, 
Desiring to re teachers of the law — 6e?.ovrec EINAI vo- 
fiodida<Jita?i,oi, desiring to be reputed teachers of the law, 
i. e., able divines — ra ONTA, the things that are, i. e., 
noble and honourable men : ra \lt) ONTA, the things 
that are not. viz., the vulgar, or those of ignoble eirth 



THE EUCHARIST. 67 

But this form of speech is common, even in 
our own language, though we have terms enow 
to fill up the ellipsis. Suppose a man entering 
into a museum, enriched with the remains of 
ancient Greek sculpture ; his eyes are attracted 
by a number of curious busts ; and on inquiring 
what they are, he learns, this is Socrates, that 
Plato, a third Homer ; others Hesiod, Horace, 
Virgil, Demosthenes, Cicero, Herodotus, Livy, 
Cesar, Nero, Vespasian, &c. Is he deceived 
by this information 1 Not at all : he knows well 
that the busts he sees are not the identical per- 
sons of those ancient philosophers, poets, ora- 
tors, historians, and emperors, but only repre- 
sentations of their persons in sculpture, 
between which and the originals there is as 
essential a difference as between a human body, 
instinct with all the principles of rational vital- 
ity, and a block of marble. When, therefore, 
Christ took up a piece of bread, brake it, and 
said, This is my body, who but the most stupid 
of mortals could imagine that he was, at the 
same time, handling and breaking his own body ? 
Would not any person, of plain common sense, 
see as great a difference between the man 
Christ Jesus and a piece of bread, as between 
the block of marble and the philosopher it re- 
presented, in the case referred to above ? The 



68 DISCOURSE ON • 

truth is, there is scarcely a more common form 
of speech, in any language, than, this is, for, 
this represents, or signifies. And as our Lord 
refers, in the whole of this transaction, to the 
ordinance of the passover, we may consider 
him as saying, " This bread is now my body, 
in that sense in which the paschal lamb has 
been my body hitherto ; and this cup is my 
blood of the New Testament, in the same sense 
as the blood of bulls and goats has been my 
blood under the old, Exod. xxiv ; Heb. ix ; i. e., 
The paschal lamb, and the sprinkling of blood, 
represented my sacrifice to the present time ; 
this bread and this wine shall represent my 
body and blood through all future ages ; there- 
fore, do this in remembrance of me" 

Perhaps, to many of my readers, it may ap- 
pear utterly improbable, that in the present 
enlightened age, as it is called, any people can 
be found who seriously and consistently credit 
the doctrine of transubstantiation. Lest I should 
fall under the charge of misrepresentation, I 
shall here transcribe the eighth lesson of the 
" Catechism for the Use of all the Churches in 
the French Empire" published in 1806, by the 
authority of the emperor Napoleon Buona- 
parte, with the bull of the pope, and the man- 
damus of the archbishop of Paris. 



THE EUCHARIST. 69 

" Q. What is the sacrament of the eucharist? 

A. The eucharist is a sacrament which con- 
tains, really and substantially, the body, 
blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
under the forms or appearance of bread and wine. 

Q. What is at first put on the altar, and in 
the chalice ? Is it not bread and wine ? 

A. Yes: and it continues to be bread and 
wine till the priest pronounces the words 

OF CONSECRATION. 

Q. What influence have these words ? 

A. The bread is changed into the body, and 
the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. 

Q. Does nothing of the bread and wine re- 
main ? 

A Nothing of them remains except the forms. 

Q. What do you call the forms of the bread 
and wine ? 

A. That which appears to our senses, as co- 
lour, figure, and taste. 

Q. Is there nothing under the form of bread 
except the body of our Lord ? 

A. Besides his body, there is his blood, his 
soul, and his divinity; because all these are 
inseparable. 

Q. And under the form of wine ? 

A. Jesus Christ is there as entire as under 
the form of the bread. 



70 DISCOURSE ON • 

Q. When the forms of the bread and wine 
are divided, is Jesus Christ divided ? 

A. No : Jesus Christ remains entire under 
each part of the form divided. 

Q. Say, in a word, what Jesus Christ gives 
us under each form ? 

A. All that he is, that is, perfect God, 

and PERFECT MAN. 

Q. Does Jesus Christ leave heaven to come 
into the eucharist 1 

A. No : he always continues at the right 
hand of God, his Father, till he shall come at 
the end of the world, with great glory, to judge 
the living and the dead. 

Q. Then how can he be present at the altar ? 

A. By the almighty power of God. 

Q. Then it is not man that works this mi- 
racle ? 

A. No : it is Jesus Christ, whose word is 
employed in the sacrament. 

Q. Then it is Jesus Christ who consecrates ? 

A. It is Jesus Christ who consecrates ; the 
priest is only his minister. 

Q. Must we worship the body and blood of 
Jesus Christ in the eucharist ? 

A. Yes, undoubtedly ; for this body, and this 
blood, are inseparably united to his divinity." 

To show that this is consistent with the 



THE EUCHARIST. 71 

canon of the mass, I shall translate the conse- 
cration prayer from the Roman Missal. When 
the priest receives the bread and wine, he thus^ 
prays, making the sign of the cross where this 
mark t appears : 

" We beseech thee, O God, to render this ob- 
lation in all things bless t ed, approv f ed, ef- 
fect t ual, reasonable, and acceptable, that it may 
be made to us the bo t dy and bl t ood of thy most 
beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ! who, the 
day before he suffered, took bread into his sa- 
cred and venerable hands, and having lifted up 
his eyes to thee, O God, the Father Almighty, 
and giving thanks to thee, bless t ed, brake, 
and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, and 
eat ye all of this, for this is my body. (HOC 
EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.)" 

[Then the priest adores, and elevates the con- 
secrated host.] 

" In like manner after he had supped, taking 
also this excellent chalice into his sacred and 
venerable hands, giving thee, also, thanks, he 
bless t ed and gave it to his disciples, saying, 
Take, and drink ye all of this, for this is the 
chalice of my blood, (HIC EST ENIM CA- 
LLS SANGUINIS MEI,) of the new and 
eternal testament, the mystery of faith which 
shall be shed for you, and for many, for the 



72 Discourse on 

remission of sins ; as oft as ye shall do these 
things, ye shall do them in remembrance of 
me." 

[Here the chalice is elevated and adored, and 
the Lord is besought to command his angel to 
carry these offerings into the presence of his di- 
vine Majesty.'] — Order of the Mass, vol. i, p. 
24, &c. 

In " the divine office for the use of the laity," 
the person who is to communicate is ordered 
to " go up to the rails, kneel down, and say 
the confteor, (confession,) with true sorrow and 
compunction for his sins." After the priest has 
prayed that God may have mercy upon him, 
and pardon all his sins, he takes the sacred 
host (i. e., the consecrated wafer) into his hand, 
and again turns about and says, Behold the Lamb 
of God /* Behold him who taketh away the sin of 
the world ! Then he and the communicant re- 
peat thrice, " Lord, I am not worthy thou 
shouldst enter under my roof; speak, there- 
fore, but the word, and my soul shall be healed," 
the communicant striking his breast in token 
of his unworthiness. " Then," says the Di- 
rectory, " having the towel raised above your 
breast, your eyes modestly closed, your head 

* Sovereign of heaven and earth ! here the adoration 
that is due to thee alone is paid to a piece of bread ! 



THE EUCHARIST. 73 

likewise raised up, and your mouth conveniently 
opened, receive the holy sacrament on your 
tongue, resting on your under lip ; then close 
your mouth, and say in your heart, Amen : I 
believe it to be the body of Christ, and I pray it 
may preserve my soul to eternal lifeT — Ordinary 
of the Mass, p. xxxiii. 

Believing that these extracts are sufficient to 
expose the shocking absurdity of this most 
monstrous system, I forbear either adding more, 
or making any comments on those already pro- 
duced. 

7. St. Luke and St. Paul add a circumstance 
here which is not noticed either by St. Mat- 
thew or St. Mark. After, this is my body, the 
former adds, which is given for you : the latter, 
which is broken for you : the sense of which is, 
" As God has, in his bountiful providence, given 
you bread for the sustenance of your lives, so, 
in his infinite grace, he has given you my body 
to save your souls unto life eternal. But as 
this bread must be broken and masticated, in 
order to its becoming proper nourishment, so 
my body must be broken, i. e., crucified for you, 
before it can be the bread of life to your souls. 
As, therefore, your life depends on the bread 
which God's bounty has provided for your 
bodies, so your eternal life depends on the 



74 DISCOURSE ON 

sacrifice of my body on the cross for your 
souls." Besides, there is here an allusion to 
the offering of sacrifices : an innocent creature 
was brought to the altar of God, and its blood 
(the life of the beast) was poured out for, or in 
behalf of the person who brought it. Thus 
Christ says, alluding to the sacrifice of the pas- 
chal lamb, This is my body, to viteq vjj,g)v dtdo- 
\ievov, which is given in your steady or in your 
behalf; a free gift from God's endless mercy 
for the salvation of your souls : This is my body, 
to vtteq vfiojv nX(x)fiEvov, (1 Cor. xi, 24,) which 
is broken, sacrificed in your stead, as without the 
breaking (piercing) of the body, and spilling of 
the blood, there was no remission. 

In this solemn transaction we must weigh 
every word, as there is none without its appro- 
priate and deeply emphatic meaning. So it is 
written, (Eph. v. 2,) Christ hath loved us, and 
given himself, vtteq t)\uav, on our account, or in 
our stead, an offering and a sacrifice, (Ovoia,) 
to God for a sweet-smelling savour, that, as in 
the sacrifice offered by Noah, (Gen. viii, 21,) 
(to which the apostle evidently alludes,) from 
which it is said, the Lord smelled a sweet savour, 
nn^n n^ riach hanichoach, a savour of rest, 
so that he became appeased toward the earth, 
and determined that there should no more be a 



THE EUCHARIST. 75 

flood to destroy it ; in like manner, in the offer- 
ing and sacrifice of Christ for us, God is ap- 
peased toward the human race ; and has, in 
consequence, decreed that whosoever believeth in 
him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. 

8. (V. 27.) And he took the cup, fiera to 
deiTTvrjoat, after having supped, Luke xxii, 20, 
and 1 Cor. xi, 25. Whether the supper was 
on the paschal lamb, or whether it was a com- 
mon or ordinary meal, I shall not wait here to 
inquire, having considered the subject at large 
in the Introduction. In the parallel place in 
Luke xxii, we find our Lord taking the cup, 
ver. 17, and again, ver. 19; by the former of 
which was probably meant the cup of blessing, 
fd^On D1!D kos haberakah, which the master of a 
family took, and after blessing God, gave to 
each of his guests by way of welcome : but 
this second taking the cup is to be understood 
as belonging peculiarly to the very important 
rite which he was now instituting, and on which 
he lays a very remarkable stress. With re- 
spect to the bread, he had before simply said, 
Take, eat, this is my body : but concerning the 
cup, he says, Drink ye all of this ; for as this 
pointed out the very essence of the institution, 
viz., the blood of atonement, it was necessary 
that each should have a particular application 



76 DISCOURSE ON 

of it, therefore he says, Drink ye all of this. 
By this we are taught that the cup is essential 
to the sacrament of the Lord's supper ; so that 
they who deny the cup to the people, sin against 
God's institution ; and they who receive not 
the cup, are not partakers of the body and blood 
of Christ. If either could, without mortal pre- 
judice, be omitted, it might be the bread ; but 
the cup as pointing out the blood, poured out, 
i. e., the life, by which alone the great sacrifi- 
cial act is performed, and remission of sins 
procured, is absolutely indispensable. On this 
ground it is demonstrable, that there is not a 
popish priest under heaven who denies the cup 
to the people, (and they all do this,) that can 
be said to celebrate the Lord's supper at all ; 
nor is there one of their votaries that ever re- 
ceived the holy sacrament. All pretension to 
this is an absolute farce, so long as the cup, the 
emblem of the atoning blood, is denied. How 
strange is it, that the very men who plead so 
much for the bare literal meaning of this is my 
body, in the preceding verse, should deny all 
meaning to drink ye all of this cup, in this verse ! 
And though Christ has, in the most positive 
manner, enjoined it, they will not permit one 
of the laity to taste it ! what a thing is man ! 
a constant contradiction to reason and to him- 



THE EUCHARIST. 77 

self. The conclusion therefore is unavoidable, 
— the sacrament of the Lord's supper is not 
celebrated in the Church of Rome. 

9. I have just said that our blessed Lord lays 
remarkable stress on the administration of the 
cup, and on that which himself assures us is 
represented by it. As it is peculiarly emphatic, 
I beg leave to set down the original text, which 
the critical reader will do well minutely to ex- 
amine : Tovro yap eg't TO ai\ia \.iov TO tt?c 
Kaivr\q 6iaQr\Kr\q, TO tteqi ttoXXcjv eicxvvofievov 
etc; acpeacv afiagrim'. The following literal trans- 
lation and paraphrase do not exceed its meaning. 

For THIS is. THAT blood of mine, which 
was pointed out by all the sacrifices under the 
Jewish law, and particularly by the shedding 
and sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb. 
THAT blood of the sacrifice slain for the rati- 
fication of the new covenant. THE blood ready 
to be poured out for the multitudes, the whole 
Gentile world as well as the Jews, for the taking 
away of sins ; sin, whether original or actual, 
in all its power and guilt ; in all its internal 
energy and pollution. 

It will be of considerable consequence to 
ascertain what this cup contained. Wine is not 
specifically mentioned, but what is tantamount 
to it is, viz., what our Lord terms yevrjfia rrjg 



78 DISCOURSE ON 

afinehov, the offspring or produce of the vine. 
Though this was the true and proper wine, yet 
it was widely different from that medicated and 
sophisticated beverage which goes now under 
that name. The y^ yayin, of the Hebrews, the 
oivoq oinos, of the Greeks, and vinum of the 
ancient Romans, meant simply the expressed 
juice of the grape, sometimes drunk just after it 
was expressed, while its natural sweetness re- 
mained, and then termed mustum : at other 
times, after fermentation, which process ren- 
dered it fit for keeping, without getting acid or 
unhealthy, then called olvoc, and vinum. By 
the ancient Hebrews I believe it was chiefly 
drunk in its first, or simple state ; hence it was 
termed among them *pyn ^IB peree haggephen, 
the fruit of the vine, and by our Lord in the 
Syriac, his vernacular language, J^^S^jj^o 
yalda dagephetha, the young or son of the vine, 
very properly translated, by the evangelist, 
XevTjfxa rrjg a\vrxe.Xov, the offspring or produce of 
the vine. In ancient times, when only a small 
portion was wanted for immediate use, the juice 
was pressed by the hand out of a bunch of 
grapes, and immediately drunk. After this 
manner Pharoah's butler was accustomed to 
squeeze out new wine into the royal cup, as is 
evident from Genesis xl, 11. 



THE EUCHARIST. 79 

Were there not a particular cause, probably 
my descending to such minuteness of descrip- 
tion might require an apology. I have only to 
say, that I have learned with extreme regret, 
that in many places a vile compound, wickedly 
denominated wine, not the offspring of the vine, 
but of the alder, gooseberry, or currant-tree, and 
not unfrequently the issue of the sweepings of a 
grocer's shop, is substituted for wine in the sacra- 
ment of the Lord's supper ! That this is a most 
wicked and awful perversion of our Lord's or- 
dinance, needs, I am persuaded, no proof. The 
matters made use of by Jesus Christ, on this 
solemn occasion, were unleavened bread, and the 
produce of the vine, i. e.,pure wine. To depart, 
in the least, from his institution, while it is in 
our power to follow it literally, would be ex- 
tremely culpable. If the principle of substitu- 
tion be tolerated in the least, innovations with- 
out end may obtrude themselves into this sacred 
rite, and into the mode of its administration ; 
then the issue must be, what alas it has al- 
ready been in numberless cases, a perversion 
of the sacred ordinance, so that the divine bless- 
ing no longer accompanies it ; hence it is de- 
spised by some, neglected by most, and by a 
certain class utterly rejected, and the Lord's 
body and blood little discerned, even by its sin- 



80 DISCOURSE ON 

cere votaries. How truly execrable must that 
covetousness be which, in order to save a lit- 
tle money, substitutes a cheap and unwhole- 
some liquor instead of that wine, of which God 
is particularly styled the Creator ; and which, 
by his own appointment, is the only emblem of 
the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ; even of 
that blood which was shed for us to make 
atonement for our sins, and preserve our bodies 
and souls unto eternal life ! These things con- 
sidered, will not every reader conclude, with 
me, that at least genuine bread and unadulterated 
wine should constitute the matter of the ele- 
ments in the Lord's supper ? 

10. And when he had given thanks. See the 
form used on this occasion, in pages 57, 58, and 
the Mishna Tract, tvUD^D Beracoth. 

11. For this is my blood of the new testament. 
This is the reading in St. Matthew and St. 
Mark ; but St. Luke and St. Paul say, This cup 
is the new testament in my blood. This pas- 
sage has been strangely mistaken : by new 
testament, many understand nothing more than 
the book commonly known by this name, con- 
taining the four gospels, Acts of the Apostles, 
apostolical epistles, and book of the Revelation ; 
and they think that the cup of the nevj testa- 
ment means no more than merely that cup which 



THE EUCHARIST, 81 

the book called the New Testament enjoins in 
the sacrament of the Lord's supper. As this 
is the case, it is highly necessary that this term 
should be explained. The original t\ Kaivt] 
Aiad7jKTj^ which we translate The New Testa- 
ment, and which is the general title of all the 
contents of the book already described, simply 
means, The New covenant. Covenant, from 
con, together, and venio, I come, signifies an 
agreement, contract, or compact between two 
parties, by which both are mutually bound to 
do certain things, on certain conditions and 
penalties. It answers to the Hebrew n*n! be- 
rith, which often signifies, not only the covenant, 
or agreement, but also the sacrifice which was 
slain on the occasion, by the blood of which 
the covenant was ratified ; and the contracting 
parties professed to subject themselves to such 
a death as that of the victim, in case of violat- 
ing their engagements. An oath of this kind, 
on slaying the covenant sacrifice, was usual in 
ancient times : so in Homer, when a covenant 
was made between the Greeks and the Trojans, 
and the throats of lambs were cut, and their 
blood poured out, the following form of adjura- 
tion was used by the contracting parties : — 

Zev Kvdtg-e, jieyigs, ttai aOavarot Beoi aXXoi, 
OrnroTEpoc nporepoL virep opftia ixr]\i7]vuav , 
6 






82 DISCOURSE ON 

Side o(f)' eyicecpaXog %a^a&£ peot, wc ode otvoe;, 
Avtcjv, fcac TEfcew. aXoxoc 6' aXkoioi fjuyeiev. 

All glorious Jove, and ye, the powers of heaven ; 
Whoso shall violate this contract first, 
So be their blood, their children's, and their own, 
Poured out as this libation, on the ground : 
And let their wives bring forth to other men ! 

Iliad, 1. iii, v. 298-301 

Our blessed Saviour is evidently called the 
AiaOrjtcn, rv^a berith, or covenant sacrifice, Isa. 
xlii, 6; xlix, 8; Zech. ix, 11. And to those 
scriptures he appears to allude, as in them the 
Lord promises to give him for a covenant (sacri- 
fice) to the Gentiles, and to send forth, by the 
blood of this covenant, {victim,) the prisoners out 
of the pit. The passages in the sacred writ- 
ings, which allude to this grand sacrificial and 
atoning act, are almost innumerable. 

In this place our Lord terms his blood the 
blood of the new covenant ; by which he means 
that grand plan of agreement, or reconciliation, 
which God was now establishing between him- 
self and mankind, by the passion and death of 
his Son, through whom alone men could draw 
nigh to God : and this new covenant is men- 
tioned in contradistinction from the old cove- 
nant, TJ naXaia Acadrjfcrj, (2 Cor. iii, 14,) by 
which appellative all the books of the Old Tes- 



THE EUCHARIST. 83 

tainent were distinguished, because they pointed 
out the way of reconciliation to God by the 
blood of the various victims slain under the law : 
but now, as the Lamb of God, which taketh away 
the sin of the world, was about to be offered up, 
a new and living way was thereby constituted, 
so that no one henceforth could come unto the 
Father but by him. Hence, all the books of 
the New Testament, which bear unanimous tes- 
timony to the doctrine of salvation by faith - 
through the blood of Jesus, are termed H K,aivr\ 
AklOtjkt], the new covenant. 

Dr. Lightfoot's Observations on this are wor- 
thy of serious notice. " This is my blood of the 
new testament. Not only the seal of 'the co- 
venant, but the sanction of the new covenant. 
The end of the Mosaic economy, and the con- 
firming of a new one. The confirmation of the 
old covenant was by the blood of bulls and goats, 
(Exod. xxiv ; Heb. ix ;) because blood was still 
to be shed : the confirmation of the new was by 
a cup of wine, because under the new covenant 
there is no further shedding of blood. As it is 
here said of the cup, " This cup is the new 
testament in my blood ;" so it might be said 
of the cup of blood, (Exod. xxiv,) That cup was 
the old testament in the blood of Christ ; there, 
all the articles of that covenant being read over, 



84 DISCOURSE ON 

Moses sprinkled all the people with blood, and 
said, u This is the blood of the covenant which 
God hath made with you ;" and thus that old 
covenant, or testimony, was confirmed. In like 
manner Christ, having published all the arti- 
cles of the new covenant, he takes the cup of 
wine, and gives them to drink, and saith, ' This 
is the new testament in my blood, 1 and thus 
the new covenant was established." — Works, 
vol. ii, p. 260. 

12. Which is shed {zK , xyvo\LZVov , poured out) 
for you and for many. E/c^£0), and enxvo), to 
pour out, are often used in a sacrificial sense in 
the Septuagint, and signifies to pour out or 
sprinkle the blood of the sacrifices before the 
altar of the Lord, by way of atonement. See 
2 Kings xvi, 15; Lev. viii, 15; ix, 9; Exod. 
xxix, 12 ; Lev. iv, 7, 14-17, 30-34 ; and in va- 
rious other places. Our Lord, by this very 
remarkable mode of expression, teaches us, that 
as his body was to be broken, or crucified, vnep 
7jfMx)v, in our stead, so here the blood was to be 
poured out to make an atonement, as the words 
remission of sins sufficiently prove ; for " with- 
out shedding of blood there was no remission," 
(Heb. ix, 22 ;) nor any remission by shedding 
of blood, but in a sacrificial way. See the 
passages above, and pages 73-75. 



THE EUCHARIST. 



85 



The whole of this passage will receive ad- 
ditional light when collated with Isa. liii, 11,12? 
" By his knowledge shall my righteous servant 
justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities ; 
because he hath poured out his soul unto 
death, and he bare the sin of manyT The 
pouring out of the soul unto death, in the prophet, 
answers to, This is the blood of the new cove- 
nant, which is poured out for you, in the evan- 
gelists : and the to^") rabbim, multitudes, in 
Isaiah, corresponds to the many, itoXXg)v, of 
Matthew and Mark. The passage will soon 
appear plain, w 7 hen we consider that two dis- 
tinct classes of persons are mentioned by the 
prophet. 1. The Jews, ver. 4, " Surely he hath 
borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows ;" 
ver. 5, " But he was wounded for our trans- 
gressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, 
the chastisement of our peace was upon him ;" 
ver. 6, " All we, like sheep, have gone astray, 
and the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity 
of us all;" 2. The Gentiles, ver. 11, By his 
knowledge IM-D bedadto, i. e., by his being made 
known, published as Christ crucified among the 
Gentiles, he shall justify fc^S 1- ! rabbim, the multi- 
tudes, (the Gentiles,) for he shall (also) bear 
their offences as well as ours, the Jews, ver. 
4, &c. It is well known that the Jewish dis- 



86 DISCOURSE ON 

pensation, termed by the apostle, as above, 
7] iraXata diadrjw], the old covenant, was par- 
tial and exclusive. None were particularly in- 
terested in it save the descendants of the twelve 
sons of Jacob ; whereas the Christian dispen- 
sation, 7] Katvrj dLadrjKTj, the new covenant, re- 
ferred to by our Lord in this place, was univer- 
sal ; for as " Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, 
tasted death for every man," (Heb. xi, 9,) and 
is that " Lamb of God that taketh away the sin 
of the world" (John i, 29,) who " would have 
all men to be saved, and come to the know- 
ledge of the truth," (1 Tim. ii, 4,) even that 
knowledge of Christ crucified, by which they 
are to be justified, (Isa. liii, 11,) therefore he 
has commanded his disciples to " go into all the 
world, and preach the gospel to every crea- 
ture," Mark xvi, 15. The reprobate race, those 
who were no people, and not beloved, were to be 
called in ; for the gospel was to be preached to 
all the world, though it was to begin at Jerusa- 
lem. Luke xxiv, 47. For this purpose was the 
blood of the new covenant sacrifice poured out 
for the multitudes, that there might be but one 
fold, as there is but one Shepherd ; and that 
God might be all and in all. 

13. All this was to be done, etc acpeoiv afiap- 
tiojv, for (or, in reference to) the taking away 



THE EUCHARIST. 87 

of sins, ver. 28. For although the blood is shed, 
and the atonement made, no man's sins are 
taken away until, as a true penitent, he returns 
to God ; and, feeling his utter incapacity to 
save himself, believes in Christ Jesus, who is 
the justifier of the ungodly. 

The phrase a^eaig rcdv afiaprMov, remission 
of sins, (frequently used by the Septuagint,) 
being thus explained by our Lord, is often used 
by the evangelists and the apostles ; and does 
not mean merely the pardon of sins, as it is 
generally understood, but the removal, or taking 
away of sins ; not only the guilt, but also the very 
nature of sin, and the pollution of the soul through 
it ; and comprehends all that is generally un- 
derstood by the terms justification and sanctifi- 
cation. For the use and meaning of the phrase 
atyeocg afiapncjv, see Mark i, 4 ; Luke i, 77 ; 
iii, 3; xxiv, 47 ; Acts ii, 38; v, 31 ; x, 43; xiii, 
38 ; xxvi, 18; Col. i, 14; Heb. x. 18. 

14. Both St. Luke and St. Paul add, that, 
after giving the bread, our Lord said, " Do this 
in remembrance of me." And after giving the 
cup, St. Paul alone adds, "This do ye, as oft 
as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." The 
account, as given by St. Paul, should be care- 
fully followed, being fuller, and received, ac- 
cording to his own declaration, by especial 



88 DISCOURSE ON 

revelation from God. See 1 Cor. xi, 23, "For 
I have received of the Lord that which also I 
delivered unto you," &c. 

As the passover was to be celebrated an- 
nually, to keep the original transaction in me- 
mory, and to show forth the true paschal lamb, 
the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of 
the world ; so after the once offering of Christ 
our passover on the cross, he himself ordained 
that bread and wine should be used, to keep 
" that his precious death in remembrance until 
his coming again." Now, as the paschal lamb, 
annually sacrificed, brought to the people's re- 
membrance the wonderful deliverance of their 
fathers from the Egyptian bondage and tyranny, 
so the bread and wine, consecrated and received 
according to our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy 
institution, was designed, by himself, to keep 
up a continual remembrance and lively repre- 
sentation of the great atonement made by his 
death upon the cross. The doing this is not 
intended merely to keep up a recollection of 
Christ, as a kind and benevolent friend, which 
is the utmost some allow, but to keep in re- 
membrance his body broken for us, and his blood 
poured out for us. For as the way to the holiest 
was ever through Ms blood, and as no man can 
ever come unto the Father but by Him, and 



THE EUCHARIST. 89 

none can come profitably who has not faith in 
his blood, it was necessary that this great help 
to believing should he frequently furnished; as, 
in all succeeding ages, there would be sinners 
to be saved, and saints to be confirmed and 
established in their holy faith. Hence we may 
learn, that God has made, at least, an annual 
celebration and partaking of the Lord's supper, 
as absolutely binding upon all who expect sal- 
vation through the blood of the cross, as he did 
the annual celebration and partaking of the 
passover on every soul in Israel, who desired 
to abide in the Lord's covenant, to escape evil, 
enjoy the divine approbation, and be saved unto 
eternal life. Those, therefore, who reject the 
Lord's supper, sin against their own mercies, 
and treat their Maker with the basest ingrati- 
tude. He, in condescension to their weakness, 
has been pleased to point out to them a very 
easy way by which they may recall to their 
minds, and represent to their senses, in a most 
lively manner, the meritorious death and pas- 
sion of the Redeemer of the world, who, al- 
though he could not suffer on the cross more 
than once, has instituted an ordinance by which 
that sacrificial act may not only be commemo- 
rated, but even represented as often as his fol- 
lowers may think proper ; and all the blessings 



90 DISCOURSE ON 

purchased by his real passion and death be 
conveyed to the souls of sincere communicants, 
through the medium of this blessed ordinance. 
The command, This do in remembrance of me, 
leaves us no choice. He who will have us to 
be saved, and come to the knowledge of the 
truth, will have us to use, as a mean of salva- 
tion, the sacrament of his supper. He, there- 
fore, who refuses to obey, boldly but awfully 
relinquishes his right to the tree of life; and 
either ignorant of the righteousness of God 
(his method of justifying sinners,) or going 
about to establish his own righteousness, (his 
own method of obtaining salvation,) rejects the 
divine remedy, in rejecting the means by which 
it is conveyed. 

Let no man deceive his own soul, by imagin- 
ing he can still have all the benefits of Christ's 
death, and yet have nothing to do with the 
sacrament : — it is* a command of the living God, 
founded on the same authority as, Thou shalt 
do no murder; none, therefore, can disobey it 
and be guiltless. Again, let no man impose on 
himself by the supposition, that he can enjoy 
this supper spiritually, without using what too 
many impiously call the carnal ordinance ; i. e., 
without eating bread and drinking wine in re- 
membrance of the death of Christ : is not this 



THE EUCHARIST. 91 

a delusion ? What says the sovereign will of 
God ? Do this. What is this 1 Why, take 
bread, break, and eat it. Take the cup, and 
drink ye all of it : — this, and only this, is ful- 
filling the will of God. Therefore, the eating 
of the sacramental bread, and the drinking of the 
consecrated wine, are essential to the religious 
performance of our Lord's command. It is 
true, a man may use these, and not discern the 
LoroVs body ; not duly and deeply consider that 
these symbols point out the body and blood of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, which were offered up 
to God for him : i. e., he may, possibly, not 
keep the eye of his faith upon the atonement, 
while he is using the symbols, and thus the 
sacred ordinance be no more to him than a 
common thing ; but does not he who rejects 
the symbols, put it absolutely out of his power 
to celebrate the divine ordinance ? A man may 
rest in the letter, and not attain the spirit ; but 
can a man, who has it in his power to avail 
himself of the letter, and does not do it, con- 
sistently with the appointment of God, expect 
the spirit ? The letter may be without the spi- 
rit ; but can the spirit, in this case, be without 
the letter? In other words, is not obedience to 
the literal meaning of our Lord's words essen- 
tial to the attainment of the spiritual blessings 



92 DISCOURSE ON 

to which they refer ? And is it not as absurd to 
expect spiritual blessings without the use of the 
appointed means, as to expect to hear sounds 
and see objects without the medium of the sun 
and atmosphere 1 

15. / will not drink henceforth of this fruit of 
the vine. — These words seem to intimate no 
more than this : We shall not have another 
opportunity of eating this bread and drinking 
this wine together, as in a few hours my cruci- 
fixion shall take place. 

16. Until that day when I drink it new with 
you — i. e., I shall no more drink of the produce 
of the vine with you ; but shall drink new wine, 
— wine of a widely different nature from this, — 
a wine which the kingdom of God alone can 
afford. The term new, in Scripture, is often 
taken in this sense. So the new heaven, the 
new earth, the new covenant, the new man, — 
mean a heaven, earth, covenant, man, of a very 
different nature from the former. It was our 
Lord's invariable custom to illustrate heavenly 
things by those of earth ; and to make that 
which had lastbeen the subject of conversation 
the means of doing it. Thus he uses wine here, 
of which they had lately drunk, and on which 
he had held the preceding discourse, to point 
out the supreme blessedness of the kingdom of 



THE EUCHARIST. 93 

God. But however pleasing and useful wine 
may be to the body, and how helpful soever, as 
an ordinance of God, it may be to the soul in 
the holy sacrament ; yet the wine of the king- 
dom, the spiritual enjoyments at the right hand 
of God, will be infinitely more precious and 
useful. From what our Lord says here, we 
learn that the sacrament of his supper is a type 
of and pledge to genuine Christians of the feli- 
city they shall enjoy with Christ in the king- 
dom of glory. 

17. And when they had sung a hymn — vfivrj' 
oavreg means, probably, no more than a kind of 
recitative reading, or chanting. As to the hymn 
itself, we know, from the universal consent of 
Jewish antiquity, that it was composed of Psalms 
113, 114, 115, 116, 117, and 118, termed by 
the Jews ^ halel, from fi^i^in halelu-yah, the 
first word in Psalm 113. These six psalms 
were always sung at every paschal solemnity. 

Having thus minutely considered all the cir- 
cumstances relating to this institution, and dis- 
tinctly noted the manner in which our Lord and 
his disciples celebrated it, I come now, 

III. To consider the proper meaning of the 
different epithets given to this sacred ordinance 
in the Scriptures, and among the early Chris- 
tians. 



94 DISCOURSE ON 

1. The most ancient, and perhaps the most 
universal, name by which this sacred rite has 
been distinguished, is that of the eucharist. 
This certainly had its origin from our Lord's 
first celebration of this holy mystery : for St. 
Luke and St. Paul both say, that when our Lord 
took bread, evxapig'Tjaag, having given thanks, 
he divided it among them. And though evXo- 
yrjoag, having blessed, is the common reading, 
(Matt, xxvi, 16,) yet almost all the best MSS. 
hitherto discovered have the former and not the 
latter word. From this word, Et^ap^a, the 
eucharist was formed ; which, among the 
primitive Christians, meant solemn thanksgiving 
to God for the many mercies received, and par- 
ticularly for those conferred by the death of our 
blessed Lord. The following quotation from 
St. Chrysostom will show in what light this 
divine ordinance was viewed among the early 
Christians, and what they meant when they 
termed it the eucharist : — Ata 6rj rovro kcll ra 
<j)pCK(A)6rj (jLvg-rjpia kcli 7roAA?/c yejiovra rrjg 
OG)T7}ptag, ra fcad' eKag"rjv reXovfieva ovva^iv, 
YiVxaqiOTia fcaXetrac, ore ttoXXcjv eg"tv eveg- 
yerrjfjiaTOV avafivqatg, /cat to Kecpahaiov rrjg 
rov Qeov TTQOvoiac; evdetfcvvrat, /cat dia irav- 
tcjv TragaanEva^et evxaptg-eiv. — Homil. xxv, 
in Matt. See Suiceri Thesaur. in voc. Ev^a- 



THE EUCHARIST. 95 

plana. " Besides this," says he, " those tre- 
mendous mysteries, replenished with abundance 
of salvation, which we celebrate in every con- 
gregation, are called the eucharist, because 
they are the memorial of many benefits, and 
point out the sum of God's providence, and pre- 
pare us to give thanks in all things." 

From this we learn that the eucharist among 
them, as representing the body and blood of 
Christ, was considered as the sum total of all 
that the prescience of God had been planning 
and executing for them, from the foundation of 
the world ; that it was an exhibition of tremen- 
dous mysteries, such as the necessity of the 
incarnation and death of Jesus Christ, the 
Almighty's fellow, for the sins of the world ; 
that in this sacrifice God had given us all pos- 
sible blessings ; and that therefore the eucha- 
rist, by which these things were called to 
remembrance, is the means of replenishing 
faithful partakers with the plenitude of salva- 
tion, by which they are enabled to walk up- 
rightly before God, and give him due thanks 
for his unspeakable gift. 

This appellative was not only general in the 
Greek church, from whose language it had its 
origin, but it was also common in the Latin 
church ; for among the western Christians and 



96 DISCOURSE ON 

Latin fathers, as early as the times of Cyprian 
and Tertullian, eucharistia meant what we term 
the sacrament of the Lord's supper. But what 
is more surprising, the term itself prevailed in 
the Oriental churches. Hence in Acts ii, 42, 
where it is said the apostles continued in rr\ 
icXaoEL rov aprov, the breaking of bread, the 
Syriac version, the oldest and purest extant, 
reads the place thus: faf^f ®)! Hj^ 00 
ubekatsia d'aukaristia, " and in the breaking of 
the eucharist ;" where the reader sees the Greek 
word introduced into a language with which it 
has no kind of affinity. This, as being the 
general name by which it was known through 
all the churches of God, and being perhaps the 
most expressive of its nature, design, and end, 
should still be retained in preference to any 
other. 

2. Lord's supper. — It does not appear that 
this name was anciently used to signify the 
eucharist. As our Lord instituted the sacra- 
ment after supper, both have been confounded ; 
and, through inadvertence, the eucharist has 
been blended with this last supper, and called, 
by way of emphasis, The Lord's supper. In 
very early times, the Christians, in imitation 
of our Lord, held a supper before the eucharist, 
which was termed ayanrj, or love-feast ; and it 



THE EUCHARIST. 97 

is very likely that it is to this, and not to the 
eucharist, that St. Paul refers, 1 Cor. xi, 20 ; 
but it appears, also, that both the Lord's supper 
and the eucharist were celebrated by the primi- 
tive Christians at the same meeting, and thus 
they became confounded ; and it is evident that 
St. Paul refers to both of these : and, from his 
manner of treating the subject, we are led to 
infer that they were celebrated at the same 
meeting, and were, as Dr. Waterland observes, 
different parts or acts of the same solemnity. 

Though this name is now a pretty general 
appellative of the eucharist, I cannot help think- 
ing it a very improper one : and though the 
matter may appear of small importance, I think, 
as it is not sufficiently design atory, it should be 
disused. 

3. Sacrifice. Qvaia. — I have already pro- 
duced some proofs from Justin Martyr, that the 
eucharist was termed a sacrifice among the pri- 
mitive Christians ; and this they did — First, 
because it took the place of the paschal lamb, 
which all acknowledge was an expiatory vic- 
tim. Secondly, because it represented the 
atonement made by the passion and death of 
Christ, for the sins of mankind. This notion 
of it has been greatly abused, as, in the Romish 
Church, the bare celebration of it has been held 
7 



98 DISCOURSE Otf 

forth in the light of an expiatory sacrifice ; so 
that all who received it were considered as 
having their sins thereby cancelled ; and they 
still boast that no church but theirs enjoys the 
benefits of the eucharist, because they alone 
believe it to be the very body and blood, hu- 
manity and divinity, of Jesus Christ, and con- 
sequently an available offering and expiation 
for their sins. Thus they most unhappily put 
the signifier in the place of the thing signified ; 
and, resting in the shadow, they lose the sub- 
stance, and do not discern the Lord's body. 
He that considers the eucharist in this point of 
view, must necessarily attribute to bread and 
wine that infinitely meritorious and atoning vir- 
tue which belongs to Jesus, as dying for our 
offences, and thus purging our sins by his own 
blood. From such an awful and destructive 
perversion of this divine institution may God 
save them, and preserve us ! 

But though this ordinance should not be con- 
sidered as a sacrifice, yet it should be well un- 
derstood that it represents one. And that every 
communicant may derive all the profit from it 
which it is calculated to afford, he should use 
it in the spirit of sacrifice. As it represents a 
covenant sacrifice, in which the contracting 
parties mutually bind themselves to each other, 



THE EUCHARIST. 99 

(God offering himself entirely, by and through 
Christ, not only to every true believer, but to 
every sincere penitent,) the communicant should 
consider that, in return, and in order that the 
covenant may be thoroughly ratified, he must 
give up his body, soul, and spirit unto the Lord, 
as a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice, firmly 
purposing to devote every power and faculty to 
glorify his Maker and Redeemer, as long as he 
shall have a being. He who is not fully deter- 
mined to be wholly on the Lord's side, should 
not intermeddle with this sacred ordinance. 
We have already seen, p. 81, that in sacrificing, 
the pouring out of the blood of the covenant vic- 
tim always implied the imprecation, that his 
blood who should first violate the conditions 
of the covenant, might be shed in like manner 
as that of the sacrifice. Hence that saying of 
St. Paul, (1 Cor. xi, 29,) " For he that eateth 
and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh 
damnation," rcptfia, judgment, or condemnation, 
"to himself;" i. e., he thereby forfeits his life, 
according to the penal sanctions of the cove- 
nant expressed by pouring out the blood, which 
is the life of the victim. " For this cause," 
says the apostle, " many are weak and sickly 
among you ; and many sleep" — some of you 
are dying, and others dead; God having thus 



100 DISCOURSE ON 

exacted the penalty of a broken covenant. Be 
faithful therefore to your God, and your soul 
shall live for ever. 

4. Breaking of bread. KXaatg rov Aprov. 
. — This I had long scrupled to admit as a legi- 
timate appellative of the eucharist, till I ob- 
served that the Syriac version has rendered 
the passages, Acts ii, 42, xx, 7, instead of 
breaking of bread, breaking the eucharist. See 
what is observed on this subject, p. 96. I 
therefore suppose that this was a common name 
for this sacred rite during the apostolic age ; 
but I think it was always used with a peculiar 
emphasis — breaking of the bread, or breaking 
of that bread, KXaatg rov Aprov. That this 
appellative descended lower than the apostolic 
times, we learn from Ignatius's Epistle co the 
Ephesians, chap, xx, where, speaking of the 
eucharist, he terms it eva aprov fcXcovreg, o eg-i 
(papfiaKOV adavacnag KaOaprrjpiov a\e%iK,aKOV, 
" breaking that one bread, which is the medi- 
cine of immortality, and the medicament which 
expels all evil ;" and Tertullian de Oratione, 
chap, xxiv, speaking of St. Paul breaking bread 
aboard the vessel, (Acts xxvii, 35,) says — In 
navi coram omnibus eucharistiam fecit. In the 
ship he celebrated the eucharist, in the presence of 
them all. It is very easy to discover how this 



THE EUCHARIST. 101 

appellative arose ; for at the original institu- 
tion, our Lord is said to have taken bread, and 
having given thanks he brake it, hence the whole 
act was termed the breaking of bread. But 
this name, as not sufficiently expressive, seems 
soon to have given place to other terms, by 
which the nature and design of this institution 
were more forcibly expressed and better under- 
stood. It is evident, however, that a principal 
design of this name was to point out that unity 
and fellowship which these primitive disciples 
had among themselves, the highest proof of 
which, in those eastern countries, was, their 
frequently breaking bread, or eating with each 
other. 

5. Communion. Kotvovta. — In 1 Cor. x, 16, 
the eucharist is called the communion of the 
body and blood of Christ. As the term Kolvg)- 
vta signifies not only communion or fellowship, 
but also participation, it evidently signifies that 
the faithful partakers had thereby fellowship or 
communion with the Lord Jesus, being made 
partakers of the benefits of his passion and 
death: so that as truly as their bodies were 
made partakers of, and were nourished by, the 
bread and wine, so truly were their souls made 
partakers of the grace, mind, and spirit of the 
Lord Jesus, so that " they dwelt in God, and 



102 DISCOURSE ON 

God in them ; were one with God, and God with 
item" 

Suicer observes in his Thesaurus, under the 
word fcoLVGJvia, that this term meant communion 
or participation, in reference to the eucharist, 
(for it had, besides, different meanings,) for the 
following reasons : 1. Because of the union of 
the faithful with Christ and with each other. 
2. Because believers are thereby not only united 
to Christ, but are also made partakers of his 
kingdom. 3. Because, through this fellowship 
or communion, they are deemed worthy of par- 
taking of all that appertains to Christ. 

In the confession of faith of the Oriental 
churches, quoted by him, we find the following 
remarkable exposition of this communion or 
participation : — H ayta kolvojvlo, ov\iboXov rrjg 
ovo<jG)fia,TG)oeG)C: /cat eyfcevrpioeoyg rjficov rrpog 
rov evav6pG)7T7jaavra vtov nai Xoyov rov Oeov, 
6c r]c eyK£vrptGrjG)g 6e Xvrpov\ieda rov accovcov 
Bavarov rrjg pta^rjg yap vyiaivovor\g /cat aecOaX- 
Xovarjg, ova sod' onog \ir\ ttai rove ftXadovg 
ovvvyiavetv ravrrj nat owOaXXeiv Sianavrog. 
Vid. Suic. Thesaur. voc. KOtvodvia. 

" The holy communion is a symbol of our 
being incorporated and engrafted in the incar- 
nated Son and Word of God ; by which en- 
grafting we are delivered from eternal death : 



THE EUCHARIST. 103 

for as the root is sound and always flourishing, 
it is not possible that the branches united with 
it, should not be sound and ever verdant." 

A two-fold communion is here pointed out. 
1. Communion with Christ. 2. Communion 
with each other. For, 1. The branches, to con- 
tinue flourishing, must have communion with 
the root, i. e., must be nourished by those very 
juices imbibed by the root ^ and, 2. As the 
branches, being all equally partakers of the 
root, have their common support and verdure 
from it ; so believers, being all equally united 
to Christ, and deriving all their nourishment 
and support from him, stand in the same rela- 
tion to each other, as the branches do in the 
same tree. This is the purport of the follow- 
ing words of our blessed Lord : I am the vine, 
ye are the branches. I pray for them that they 
may be one, even as thou, Father, art in me, and 
I in thee. I in them, and thou in me, that they 
may bo made perfect in one. 

6. Sacrament. — Sometimes called the holy 
sacrament, and the sacrament of the LoroVs sup- 
per. The reason and true meaning of this 
appellative being, I conceive, very little known, 
I shall endeavour to consider this subject more 
minutely than I have done in any of the pre- 
ceding cases. Though this term, as applied 



104 DISCOURSE ON 

to the eucharist, is nowhere to be found in 
Scripture, yet it appears to have been in use 
very early in the primitive church. The first 
time it is mentioned, probably in reference to 
this solemn act, is in the well-known epistle of 
Pliny Secundus to the Emperor Trajan. This 
very learned and eminent statesman was ap- 
pointed by the emperor to the administration 
of affairs in the province of Bithynia, a coun- 
try of Natolia, or Asia-Minor, bordering on the 
Euxine sea ; through different parts of whose 
vicinity the gospel had been preached by Paul 
and Silas, (Acts xvi, 1, &c.,) and probably by 
others before them. 

In this country multitudes had been converted 
to the Lord, so that when Pliny came to the 
government of the province, he found that multi 
omnis atatis, omnis ordinis, utriusque sexus etiam, 
many of every age, rank, and sex, had em- 
braced the Christian religion ; for " the conta- 
gion of this superstition," as he terms it, " was 
not confined to cities, but had diffused itself 
through all the neighbouring villages and coun- 
try." Neque enim civitates tantum, sed vicos etiam 
atque agros superstitionis istius contagio perva- 
gata est. Finding the Christian cause rapidly 
gaining ground, and the temples almost entirely 
deserted, and the rites and ceremonies of hea- 



THE EUCHARIST. 105 

thenism abandoned, desolata templa et sacra so- 
lemnia intermissa, he published a decree, by- 
order of the emperor, forbidding the Christian 
assemblies on pain of death. The followers 
of Christ being hemmed in on every side, by 
this state persecution, were obliged to relin- 
quish their meetings very generally, so that 
those which were held, were confined to the 
sabbath, and then only before day. 

This subjected so many to accusation and 
consequent death, that the governor's heart 
began to relent, and he wrote to the emperor, 
proposing a number of questions for direction 
in this important business ; transmitting to him, 
at the same time, the sum of all the charges 
that could be legally substantiated against the 
Christians. This most important piece of 
church history, so honourable to the followers 
of Christ, and disgraceful to their persecuters, 
and in which we find the first mention of sacra- 
merit, is still extant in Pliny's Epistles, lib. x, 
Epist. 97, vol. ii, p. 127, edit. Bipont., 1789, 
8vo. Affirmabant, autem, hanc fuisse summam 
vel culpa vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die 
ante lucem convenire ; carmenque Christo, quasi 
Deo, dicer e secum invicem: seque SACRAMEN- 
TO non in scelus aliquod OBSTRINGERE, 
sed nefurta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committer 



106 DISCOURSE ON 

rent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati 
abnegarent : quibus peractis, morem sibi discedeti- 
difuisse rursusque cocundi ad capiendum cibum, 
promiscuum tamen, et innoxium. " They affirmed 
that the whole of their fault or error was this ; 
that they were accustomed to meet together on 
a certain day, (stato die, the sabbath,) before 
day-light, and sing a hymn by turns, (viz., a 
responsive song,) to Christ as their God, and 
to bind themselves by a solemn oath, (by a 
sacrament,) not for any wicked purpose, but 
not to be guilty of theft, robbery, or adultery ; 
not to violate their faith, nor to deny any depo- 
sit when called on to deliver it up : having 
done these things, it was their custom to sepa- 
rate, and afterward to re-assemble to eat in 
common an inoffensive meal." 

There is every reason to believe that Pliny 
refers here to that partaking of the eucharist, 
and the solemn engagements they entered into 
with God, when receiving that sacred ordi- 
nance, to depart from every appearance of evil; 
and render up, in affectionate obedience, their 
bodies, souls, and spirits to their Maker. 

The word sacramentum properly means the 
military oath, which every Roman soldier was 
obliged to take, of fidelity and obedience to his 
general. From this we may learn both the 



THE EUCHARIST. 107 

reason and meaning of the term sacrament, as 
applied to trie eucharist. Considering the va- 
rious oppositions which the disciples of Christ 
might expect to meet with from the devil and 
his servants, and which they were expected to 
resist, continuing faithful even at the hazard of 
their lives, all that embraced the gospel were 
represented as enlisting themselves under the 
banner of Christ, whose faithful soldiers they 
promised to be. And as the Captain of their 
salvation was made perfect by sufferings, they 
were expected to follow him in the same path, 
loving not their lives even unto death. Now, as 
in the holy eucharist their obligations to their 
divine Leader were set before them in the most 
impressive and affecting point of view, they 
made this, their covenant sacrifice, an occasion 
of binding themselves afresh to their Lord, to 
fight manfully under his banner. Hence, as 
there was a continual reference to the sacra- 
mentum, or military oath, the blessed ordinance 
itself appears to have been termed the sacra- 
ment, because in it they took the vows of the 
Lord upon them ; and as often as they cele- 
brated this sacred ordinance, they ratified the 
covenant engagements which they had made at 
their baptism. 

What was the matter, and what the precise 



108 DISCOURSE ON 

words of this oath, is a subject of inquiry at 
once both curious and useful. The very form 
and matter of the oath are both preserved in 
Polybius, and a careful view of them cannot 
fail to cast much light on the subject now under 
consideration. In Histor. lib. vi, sec. 1, where 
he is giving an account of the manner of rais- 
ing, imbodying, and enrolling the Roman 
troops, he observes, that when all the proper 
arrangements were made, and the different 
companies formed, the chiliarch, or military tri- 
bune, selecting a proper person from all the 
rest, propounded the sacramentum, or oath of 
fidelity and obedience, who immediately swore 
as follows :— H MHN IIEieAPXHSEIN KAI 
II0IH2EIN TO IIPOSTATTOMENON TIIO 
T£N APXONTQN RATA ATNAMIN. O* 3e 
XotiTOi navreg ofivvovat KaO' eva TTponopevofie- 
voi rov r'avro drjXovvrec on ttoltjoovol, rravra 
ftadanep o npcorog : submissively to obey and 

PERFORM WHATSOEVER IS COMMANDED BY THE 
OFFICERS, ACCORDING TO THE UTTERMOST OF 

his power. The rest all coming forward, one 
by one, take successively the same oath, that 
they would perform every thing according to 
what the first had sworn." — Vide Polyb. a 
Gronovio, 8vo. Amsterdam, 1670, vol. 1, p. 650. 
Here, then, is the meaning of the word sacra- 



THE EUCHARIST. 109 

ment, so frequently used in the primitive church, 
and still common among the major part of Chris- 
tians, who acknowledge the divine obligation 
of the eucharist, and who break bread and drink 
ivine in remembrance that Jesus Christ died for 
them. He, therefore, who comes to this ordi- 
nance in the true primitive spirit, binds himself 
to God by the most solemn vow, that he will 
acknowledge him for his leader and director; sub- 
mit implicitly to his authority, perform his right- 
eous commands, and exert the uttermost powers 
of his body and soul in the service of his Re- 
deemer. 

7. Paschal feast, or passover. — This was 
a very ancient title, and out of it many others 
of a similar import grew, such as God's feast, 
or banquet, the Lord's table, the spiritual 

PASSOVER, the SACRAMENTAL FEAST, &C. ; all 

of which seem to have had their origin in the 
consideration that the eucharist succeeded to the 
passover, which was clearly founded on St. 
Paul's words, (1 Cor. v, 7, 8,) " Christ, our 
passover, is sacrificed for us, therefore let us 
keep the feast" Dr. Cud worth, who has writ- 
ten a very lea'rned discourse on " The true 
notion of the Lord's Supper," has fully proved, 
chap. 1, " that it was a custom among the Jews 
and heathens to feast upon things sacrificed ; and 



110 DISCOURSE ON 

that the custom of Christians in partaking of the 
body and blood of Christ once sacrificed upon 
the cross, in the Lord's supper, is analogical 
hereunto." And he proves, in chap. 2, from 
Scripture and from Jewish authors, that " the 
passover was a true sacrifice, and the paschal 
feast a feast upon a sacrifice." And, in chap. 
4, he demonstrates, " that the Lord's supper, in 
the Christian church, in reference to the true 
sacrifice of Christ, is a parallel to the feasts 
upon sacrifices both in the Jewish religion and 
heathenish superstition." And concludes, in 
chap. 5, that " the Lord's supper is not a sacri- 
fice, but a feast upon a sacrifice." 

Dr. Cudworth properly divides the sacrifices 
under the law into three kinds : first, such as 
were wholly offered to God, and burnt upon the 
altars ; as the holocausts, or burnt offerings, ini^W 
oloth. Secondly, such as the priests ate a 
part of, besides a part offered to God upon the 
altar ; as the sin offerings, nat:)! chattath, and 
the trespass offerings, Ma ashem. Thirdly, 
such as the owners themselves had a part of, 
besides a part bestowed on the priests, and a 
portion offered to God : these w«re termed the 
E^toiEJ shelamim, or peace offerings" 

That the Gentiles feasted on the sacrifices 
offered to their gods, every one knows who has 



THE EUCHARIST. Ill 

read the Greek and Roman classics : of this, 
the following proofs cannot be unacceptable to 
any intelligent reader. In Iliad A., Homer 
describes a hecatomb sacrifice, which Agamem- 
non offered to Apollo, by his priest Chryses, 
and & feast that immediately followed : — 

tol 6' G)fca Qsg) tcheiTTjv efcarofjidrjv 

E^eiT/c eg"rj(jav evdfirjrov irept, /3(*)fj,ov. 



-Then before the shrine 



Magnificent, in order due they ranged 

The noble hecatomb ! Ver. 446, 

Avrag eirei p* evgavro, /cat ovko^vrag npoda- 
Xovro, k. r. A. 

and with meal 



Sprinkling the victims, their retracted necks 

First pierced, then flayed them. Ver. 458. 

Mrjgovg r' e^erafjiov, Kara re kvigot] eicaXvipav, 

re. r. X. 



-the thighs with fire consumed, 



They gave to each his portion of the maw, 

Then slash'd the remnant, pierced it with the spits, 

And, managing with culinary skill, 

They roast ; withdrew it from the spits again. 

Their whole task thus accomplished, and the board 

Set forth, they feasted, and were all sufficed. 

Ver. 460-468. 

In the second Iliad, Agamemnon offers an 



112 DISCOURSE ON 

ox to Jupiter, and invites several of the Grecian 
captains to partake of it : 

Avrap o (3ovv tepevaev avai; av6pa)v Ayafisfi 
VO)V, tc. r. X. 

But Agamemnon in his tent prepared 
For sacrifice, to all-commanding Jove, 
A fifth-year fatted ox, and to his feast 
Summoned the noblest of the sons of Greece. 

II. B. v, 403-431. 

In Odyssey, T, Nestor sacrifices an ox to 
Minerva, in behalf of Telemachus and his 
friends, on which they all afterward feasted. 

Avrap enet Kara \xr\tf etcarf, nat onXayxv' 
enaaavro, tc. r. A. 

The thighs consumed, 

They ate the interior part, then slicing them, 
The remnant, pierced and held it to the fire. 
The viands dress'd, and from the spits withdrawn, 
They sat to share the feast. 

Odyss. T v, 461-471. 

In the same book, the Pylians are represent- 
ed sacrificing eighty-one black bulls to Nep- 
tune, at which were present four thousand five 
hundred persons, who, having offered the thighs 
to their god, feasted on the entrails, and the rest 
of the flesh. 

See Cowper's Homer. — Odyss. Ill, v. 1, &c. 



THE EUCHARIST. 113 

Plato, in his second book, De Legibus, ac- 
knowledges such feasts under the name of 
Eoprai fJbETd Oeiov, Feasts after divine worship. 

Virgil refers to the same custom, Eclogue 
iii, v, ver. 77. 

Cum faciam Vitula, pro frugibus, ipse venito. 

" When, instead of offering fruits, I shall 
sacrifice a heifer, come thou to the feast" 

And thus in iEneid, v. 179, Evander enter- 
tains iEneas : 

Turn lecti juvenes certatim, araeque sacerdos, 
Viscera tosta ferunt taurorum — 
Vescitur JSneas simul et Trojana juventus, 
Perpetui tergo bovis et lustralibus extis. 

M Then chosen youths, and the priest, with 
great despatch, heap on the altar the broiled 
intestines of bulls — iEneas, and with him the 
Trojan youth, feast on the chine and hallowed 
viscera of an ox." 

The ancient Persians were accustomed to 
pour out the blood of the victims to their gods* 
and then feast on the flesh. And the ancient 
Arabians did the same in their camel feasts. 
And, as Dr. Cudworth properly observes, from 
this custom of the heathens of feasting upon 
sacrifices, arose that famous controversy among 
the primitive Christians, (noticed in the New 



114 DISCOURSE ON 

Testament,) " whether it be lawful (eaOietv 
ecdcoXodvra) to eat things sacrificed to idols." 
Indeed, this custom was so common among the 
ancient heathens, that he who made use of any 
flesh at his table, which had not been offered 
to the gods, was deemed a profane person. 
Hence the Greek proverb, advra eadietv, to 
eat things which had not been sacrificed, was used 
as a brand of a notoriously wicked man. 

I cannot deny myself the pleasure of laying 
the substance of Dr. Cudworth's " Demonstration, 
that the Lord's supper in the Christian church, 
in reference to the true sacrifice of Christ, is a 
parallel to the feasts upon sacrifices, both in the 
Jewish religion and heathenish superstition ;" 
which he proves from a passage of Scripture, 
(1 Cor. x,) where all these three are compared 
together, and made exact parallels to each 
other. 

Ver. 14, Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee 
from idolatry. 

Ver. 15, / speak as to wise men: judge ye 
what I say. 

Ver. 16, The cup of blessing, which we bless: 
is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? 
The bread which we break, is it not the commu- 
nion of the body of Christ ? 

Ver. 18, Behold Israel after the flesh : are not 



THE EUCHARIST. 115 

they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the 
altar ? 

Ver. 20, Now, I say, that the things which the 
Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, (datfio- 
vtoiq, demons,) and not to God ; and I would not 
that ye should have fellowship with devils, (fcot- 
vcovovg tg)v datfiovtijdv ytveoOat, that ye should 
not be participators with demons.) 

Ver. 21, Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, 
and the cup of devils, (dacfjtovicjv, demons:) ye 
cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and the 
table of devils, (dcu[j,ovLG)v, demons.) 

In these passages, the design of the apostle 
is to convince the Corinthians of the unlawful- 
ness of eating things sacrificed to idols ; and he 
does this by showing that though an idol is no- 
thing in the world, and things sacrificed to idols 
physically nothing, as differing from other meats, 
yet morally and circumstantially to eat of things 
sacrificed to idols, in the idol's temple, was to 
consent to the sacrifices, and to be guilty of them. 

This he illustrates,^^, from a parallel rite 
in the Christian religion, where the eating and 
drinking of bread and wine in the eucharist, as 
representing the body and blood of Christ, 
offered to God upon the cross for us, is a real 
communication in his death and sacrifice 
ver. 16, The cup of blessing which we bless. 



116 DISCOURSE ON 

not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The 
bread, which we break, is it not the communion of 
the body of Christ ? 

Secondly, from another parallel of the same 
rite among the Jews, where they who ate were 
always accounted partakers of the altar, that is, 
of the sacrifice offered on the altar. Behold 
Israel after the flesh ; are not they which eat of 
the sacrifices partakers of the altar? ver. 18. 

Therefore, as to eat the symbols of the body 
and blood of Christ in the eucharist, is to par- 
take of his sacrifice offered up to God for us ; 
and as to eat of the Jewish sacrifices under the 
law, was to partake in the legal sacrifices them- 
selves : so, to eat of things offered up in sacri- 
fice to idols, was to be partakers of the idol 
sacrifices, and therefore was unlawful : for the 
things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice 
to devils, but Christ's body and blood were 
offered up in sacrifice to GOD, and therefore 
they could not partake of both together, the 
sacrifice of the true God, and the sacrifice of 
devils. 

St. Paul's argument here must necessarily 
suppose a perfect analogy between these three, 
and that they are all parallels to each other ; or 
else it has no force. Therefore I conclude that 
the Lord's supper is the same among Christians 



THE EUCHARIST. 117 

in respect of the Christian sacrifice, as the 
Jewish feasts or sacrifices were among them, 
and the feasts upon idol sacrifices were among 
the Gentiles ; and consequently that the eucha- 
rist is Epulum sacrificiale, or epulum ex oblatis, 
that is, a feast upon a sacrifice, q. e. d. — True 
notion of the Lord's Supper, fourth ed., p. 26. 

Having thus sufficiently shown that the eu- 
charist is properly a feast upon a sacrifice, I 
shall now consider it particularly in the light 
of a FEAST. 

Aulus Gellius, (Noctes Attics, lib. xiii, c. 
11, edit. Bipont., vol. ii, p. 60,) informs us that 
Marcus Varro wrote a treatise, entitled, Quid 
Vesper serus Vehat : — What may the close 
of the day produce ? in which he speaks of 
feasts, the proper number and quality of 
guests, and the custom and management of 

the ENTERTAINMENT itself. 

A feast, says he, is just what it should be, 
omnibus suis numeris absolutum est, when made 
up of these four circumstances. 1. Si belli ho- 
munculi collecti sunt. 2. Si locus electus. 3. Si 
tempus tectum. 4. Si apparatus non neglectus. 

1. Decent respectable persons. 

2. A convenient and proper place. 

3. A suitable time. And, 

4. Proper cheer and accommodations. 



118 DISCOURSE ON 

I shall take these things in order, and apply 
them to a proper celebration of the eucharist, 
considered in the light of a religious feast. 

1. Decent, respectable persons. If ever at- 
tention should be paid to this subject, it is when 
God provides the entertainment, and conde- 
scends to sit down with the guests. St. Paul 
has taken up this subject in a particular man- 
ner, (1 Cor. xi, 27, &c.,) and it is highly ne- 
cessary that we should weigh his important 
advice. 

He asserts, ver. 27, " Whosoever shall eat 
this bread and drink this cup unworthily, shall 
be guilty of the body and blood of Christ." 
From this we learn that improper communi- 
cants are in a very awful state. These may 
be divided into two classes, the inconsiderate 
and the ungodly. Of the former class, there 
are multitudes among the different societies of 
Christians. They know not the Lord, and dis- 
cern not the operation of his hands : hence they 
go to the Lord's table from a mere sense of 
duty or propriety, without considering what the 
sacred elements represent, or feeling any hun- 
ger after the bread that endureth unto eternal 
life. These really profane the ordinance, by 
either not devoting it to the end of its institu- 
tion, or by perverting that end. Among these 






THE EUCHARIST. 119 

may probably be ranked those who believe not 
in the vicarious sufferings and death of the 
blessed Redeemer. They also receive the 
Lord's supper, but they do it as a testimony of 
respect and friendly remembrance — these do not 
discern the Lord's body ; do not see that this 
bread represents his body which was broken 
for them, and his blood which was spilt for the 
remission of sins. Their celebration of this 
ordinance is an absolute profanation of it, for- 
asmuch as they do it to another purpose than 
that for which Christ instituted it. It was a 
maxim among the rabbins, " That if the pas- 
chal lamb was slain in its own name, and the 
blood sprinkled as that of another sacrifice, the 
whole was polluted." Or, "if the offerer 
changed his intention, during the solemnity, 
and in the purpose of his mind changed the 
sacrifice, it was polluted." See Mishna Tract. 
Pesachim. This was doubtless true of the 
passover, and no less so of the antitype, for in 
Christ crucified a greater than the paschal lamb 
is here. If the blessed God has instituted this 
solemnity to bring to remembrance the death 
of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, and a person 
calling himself a Christian comes forward to 
the sacred feast, with a creed determined 
against this Scriptural, and, indeed, only reli- 



120 DISCOURSE ON 

gious use of it, does he not in heart change the 
sacrifice? are not the crucifixion of the body, 
and the spilling of the blood, perverted from 
their grand purpose ; and the awful solemnity 
polluted in his hands ? He pretends to remem- 
ber Christ crucified, but he commemorates the 
sprinkling of his blood not as an atonement for 
sin, but " as a necessary consequence of Jew- 
ish malice, and of the unshaken integrity of the 
Founder of Christianity, who, to convince the 
world that he was sincere, and that his doc- 
trines were all true, submitted to a painful and 
ignominious death !" Is not this eating and 
drinking unworthily? Can such persons have 
ever carefully examined the book of God, rela- 
tive to this matter ? If they have not, they are 
greatly to be pitied, and greatly to be blamed : 
if they have, and still refuse to acknowledge 
Him who died for them, their case is peculiarly 
deplorable. 

Of the ungodly, as comprehending transgres- 
sors of all descriptions, little need be said in 
proof of their unworthiness. Such, coming to 
the table of the Lord, eat and drink their own 
condemnation, as they profess, by this religious 
act, to acknowledge the virtue of that blood 
which cleanseth from all unrighteousness, while 
themselves are slaves of sin. Those who sin 



THE EUCHARIST. 121 

against the remedy must perish ; and it is their 
condemnation, that God had provided a ransom 
for their souls, but they refused to accept it ; 
and preferred the bondage of sin to the liberty 
of the gospel. None such should ever be per- 
mitted to approach the table of the Lord : if 
they (through that gross ignorance which is the 
closely-wedded companion of profligacy) are 
intent on their own destruction, let the minis- 
ters of God see that the ordinance be not pro- 
faned by the admission of such disreputable and 
iniquitous guests. In many Christian churches 
there is a deplorable lack of attention to this 
circumstance — professor and profane are often 
permitted to approach the sacred ordinance to- 
gether ; in consequence of which the sincere 
followers of God are wounded, the weak stum- 
bled, and the influences of the Spirit of God 
restrained. For can it be expected that God 
will manifest his approbation when the pale of 
his sanctuary is broken down, and the beasts 
of the forest introduced into the holy of holies ? 
The evils consequent on this cannot be calcu- 
lated : and these are justly chargeable to the 
account of those who have the management of 
this sacred ordinance. No man should be per- 
mitted to approach the table who is not known 
to be a steady, consistent character, or a thorough 



122 DISCOURSE ON 

penitent. If there be an indiscriminate admis- 
sion, there must be unworthy communicants, 
who, instead of receiving the cup of salvation, 
will wring out the dregs of the cup of trem- 
bling ; for we may rest assured that this ordi- 
nance is no indifferent thing : every soul that 
approaches it will either receive good or evil 
from it — he w T ill retire a better or a worse man 
— he will have either an increase of the Spirit 
of Christ or of Judas — on him the Lord will 
graciously smile or judicially frown. It may 
be here asked, "Who then should approach 
this awful ordinance ?" I answer, Every be- 
liever in Christ Jesus who is saved from his 
sins has a right to come. Such are of the 
family of God; and this bread belongs to the 
children. On this there can be but one opin- 
ion. 2dly. Every genuine penitent is invited 
to come, and consequently has a right, because 
he needs the atoning blood, and by this ordi- 
nance the blood shed for the remission of sins 
is expressively represented. " But I am not 
worthy." And who is ? There is not a saint 
upon earth, or an archangel in heaven, who is 
worthy to sit down at the table of the Lord. 
" But does not the apostle intimate that none 
but the worthy should partake of it ?" No : he 
has said nothing of the kind ; he solemnly re- 



THE EUCHARIST. 123 

prehends those who eat and drink unworthily, 
and consequently approves of those who par- 
take worthily — but there is an essential differ- 
ence between eating and drinking worthily, and 
being worthy thus to eat and drink. He eats 
and drinks unworthily, who does not discern the 
Lord's body ; i. e., who does not consider that 
this bread represents his body, which, in a sacri- 
ficial way, was broken for him ; and this cup his 
blood, which was poured out for the multitudes, 
for the remission of sins. The genuine believer 
receives the Lord's supper in the remembrance 
of the atonement which he has received, and 
of the blood which he expects is to cleanse him 
from all unrighteousness, or to keep him clean, 
if that change has already taken place in his 
soul. The penitent should receive it in refer- 
ence to the atonement which he needs, and 
without which he knows he must perish ever- 
lastingly. Thus none are excluded but the 
impenitent, the transgressor, and the profane. 
Believers, however weak, have a right to come ; 
and the strongest in faith need the grace of this 
ordinance. Penitents should come, as all the 
promises of pardon mentioned in the Bible are 
made to such ; and he that is athirst may take 
the water of life freely. None is worthy of the 
entertainment, (though all these will partake of 



124 DISCOURSE ON 

it worthily ;) but it is freely provided by Him 
who is the Lamb of God, who was slain for us, 
and is worthy to receive glory and majesty, do- 
minion and power, for ever and ever ! 

In the same tract of Varro, mentioned above, 
he says that " in a feast well constituted, (con- 
vivarum numerum incipere opportere a gratiarum 
numero, et progredi ad musarum,) we should 
begin with the graces, and end with the muses ;" 
by which he did not merely mean, as Gellius 
says, that in a feast there should never be fewer 
than three, never more than nine ; but that every 
feast should be commenced with order, decency, 
and gracefulness, and should terminate in the 
increase of social affection, and the general hap- 
piness of the guest. All those who come to this 
gospel feast, should come in that spirit in which 
they may expect to meet and please their God, 
have thereby their brotherly love increased, and 
their happiness in God considerably augmented. 
It is in reference to this point, (the increase of 
brotherly affection and communion with God,) 
that the apostle says (1 Cor. v, 7, 8) to the con- 
tentious and unloving Christians at Corinth, 
among whom were dissensions and schisms, 
" Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a 
new and unleavened lump : for even Christ, our 
passover, is sacrificed for us ; therefore let us 



THE EUCHARIST. 125 

keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with 
the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with 
the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 
We have already seen with what care the an- 
cient Jews purged their houses of leaven ; and 
what pains they took to have themselves, their 
houses, and their utensils pure. This they did 
by the express command of God, (Exod. xxiii, 
18,) who meant thereby not merely their re- 
moving all fermented substances from their 
houses, but, as the apostle properly observes, 
the leaven of malice and wickedness from their 
hearts, without which they could neither love 
one another, nor in any respect please God. 
Hence the Church of England very properly 
requires, in all her communicants, that they 
should " steadfastly purpose to lead a new life, 
have a lively faith in God's mercy through 
Christ, and be in charity with all men." This 
is, indeed, purging out the old leaven, that the 
lump may be entirely new and pure. 

2. A proper and convenient place. Locus 
elect us. 

From the beginning God has appointed a 
place where he chose to register his name ; and 
this was necessary, in the infancy of revelation, 
that a proper uniformity might be observed in 
the divine worship, and idolatry prevented. 



126 DISCOURSE OX 

And though we know that God is not confined 
to temples made by hands, yet he does conde- 
scend to dwell among men in such places as are 
set apart for his worship, and are consecrated 
to his name. Hence, the place of public wor- 
ship must be the most proper for this and every 
other sacred ordinance. Hither men come to 
wait upon their God ; and in the sanctuary his 
power and glory are often shown forth. As the 
house is the house of God, on entering under 
the roof a sacred awe, exceedingly helpful to 
the spirit of true devotion, is generally felt. 
Whatever we see and hear calls to our mind 
different religious acts, and as nothing in the 
place has been devoted to common or secular 
uses, every association of ideas relative to what 
we see and hear only serves to deepen each 
serious impression, and excite the soul to the 
due performance of the different parts of divine 
worship. 

Those who have pleaded that every place is 
equally proper for the worship of God, because 
he fills the heavens and the earth, have not 
considered the powerful influence of associa- 
tion on the mind of man. Let a man only see, 
where he worships, a series of objects which 
he everywhere meets with in common life, and 
he will find it difficult to maintain the spirit of 



THE EUCHARIST. 127 

devotion. I grant that, in the beginning of the 
kingdom of Christ, the first converts were 
obliged to worship in private houses, and even 
in such the holy eucharist was celebrated ; 
(Acts ii, 46 ;) and in every age since that time 
many excellent Christians have been obliged 
to use even the meanest dwellings for the pur- 
poses of religious worship ; but where buildings 
consecrated solely to the service of God can 
be had, these alone should be used ; and there- 
fore the house of God, whether it be church or 
chapel, ceremonially consecrated or unconse- 
crated, should be preferred to all others. And 
here I hope I may, without offence, say one 
word, — that it is not a ceremonial consecration 
of a place to God that can make it peculiarly 
proper for his worship ; but the setting the place 
apart, whether with or without a ceremony, for 
prayer, praise, preaching, and the administra- 
tion of the Lord's supper. By this means it 
becomes properly the house of God, because 
solely set apart for religious purposes. The 
lax teaching that has said, Every place is equally 
proper, has brought about with thousands that 
laxity of practice which leads them to abandon 
every place of worship, and every ordinance of 
God. Innovation is endless ; and when it takes 
place in the worship of God, it seldom stops 



128 DISCOURSE ON 

till it destroys both the form and power of reli- 
gion. The private house is ever proper for 
family worship, and for public worship also, 
when no place set apart for the purposes of reli- 
gion can be had ; for in ancient times many of 
the disciples of Christ had a church in their 
houses ; (see Rom. xvi, 5 ; Phil. 2 ;) and in 
these God manifested his power, and showed 
forth his glory, as he had done in the sanctuary : 
but I would simply state, that such dwellings 
should not be preferred, when, by the consent 
of any religious people, a place is set apart for 
the purposes of divine worship. Thus much 
may suffice concerning the locus electus of Varro, 
as far as it can be applied for the illustration 
of the present subject. 

3. Tempus ledum. A suitable time. 

How often in the year, and at what time of the 
day, should the eucharist be celebrated, are 
questions to which considerable importance has 
been attached. How often the first Christians 
received the holy sacrament cannot be exactly 
ascertained. In Acts ii, 42, it is said that they 
continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and 
fellowship, and in breaking of bread; and in 
ver. 46, they continued daily in breaking 
bread from house* to house. We have already 
seen that the forty-second verse probably refers 



I 



THE EUCHARIST. 129 



to the eucharist : of the latter this is not so 
obvious. However, some have supposed, from 
this passage, that the holy sacrament was cele- 
brated every day, in one or other of the Chris- 
tians' houses ; and that therefore the eucharist 
was the daily bread of the first Christians. 
And there is some reason to think that thisVas 
the case at a very early period of the Christian 
church; for Eusebius (Demonstr. Evangel., 
lib. 1) says, they commemorated the body and 
blood of Christ, oarjfjbegai, daily. And it is very 
likely that many understood our Lord's com- 
mand in so general a sense, that whenever they 
brake bread, they did it in a sacramental remem- 
brance of him. If this were really the case, 
and it is not improbable, it did not long con- 
tinue so, as it soon became a set ordinance, and 
was not associated with any other meal ; though, 
at a very early period, a love-feast often pre- 
ceded it. From Justin Martyr, and others, we 
learn that it was celebrated at the conclusion 
of public worship, sometimes in the morning, 
and sometimes in the evening ; and both Pliny 
and Tertullian speak of its being celebrated 
before daylight. So that it does not appear 
that any particular part of the day was, at any 
time, deemed exclusively proper. • 

As the Lord's day is devoted to public wor- 
9 



130 discourse or 

ship, that day, above all others, must be the 
most proper for the celebration of this ordi- 
nance ; as the heart is better prepared* to wait 
on God without distraction, worldly business- 
being then laid aside, and consequently the 
mind more free to enter into a consideration of 
such important mysteries. And as the Lord's 
day is the most proper among the days, so the 
morning of that day is the most favourable time 
on which to celebrate this sacred ordinance. 
Toward the close of the day a man may be 
comparatively indisposed toward a profitable 
commemoration of the passion of our Lord, by 
the fatigue attendant on the different religious 
duties performed during its course ; which ex- 
hausting the animal powers, renders the mind 
incapable of such sublime and pathetic acts of 
devotion as certainly belong to a due perform- 
ance of the last command of our blessed Lord. 
But no rule can be given in this case, which 
will not admit of exceptions ; and it must be 
left to those whose business it is to conduct the 
worship of God, to determine, in several cases, 
what is the most proper time, as well as which 
is the most proper place. 

With respect to the frequency of celebrating 
this divine ordinance, it may be observed, in 
general, that a medium between seldom and 



THE EUCHARIST. 131 

frequency should prevail. Some have received 
it daily, others weekly — some once in the month, 
others once per quarter, and some only once in 
the year. There is surely a medium between 
the first and last of these extremes. Few are 
so spiritually minded as to be able to discern 
the Lord's body in a daily, or even weekly use 
of the sacrament. Those who receive it only 
once in the year, cannot sufficiently feel the 
weight of the divine command. The intervals 
between the times of celebration are so long, 
that it is almost impossible to keep up the com- 
memoration of the great facts shadowed forth 
by this ordinance. On the other hand, those 
who take it daily, or once in the week, become 
too much familiarized with it, properly to re- 
spect its nature and design. I believe it will 
be found, that those who are thus frequently at 
the Lord's supper, do not, in general, excel in 
deep and serious godliness. Were, t permitted 
to advise in this case, I would say, let every 
proper communicant receive the holy sacrament 
once every month. Once a year, or once in 
the quarter, is too seldom ; once a day, or once 
in the week, is too frequent : once in the month, 
or once in six weeks, is the proper mean. 

But what can we think of those who call 
themselves Christians, and very seldom or 



132 DISCOURSE ON 

never are found at the Lord's table? They are 
either despisers or neglecters of the dying words 
and command of their Lord, and are unworthy 
.of the benefits resulting from a due observance 
of this divine ordinance. If the omission of a 
prescribed duty be a sin against God, (and who 
dares deny it ?) then these are sinners against 
their "own souls. Many, comparatively sincere, 
are detained in the back ground of Christian 
experience on this very account ; and many 
whole churches labour under the divine dis- 
pleasure, because of the general neglect of this 
ordinance among their members. Every soul, 
who wishes not to abjure his right to the bene- 
fits of Christ's passion and death, should make 
it a point with God and his conscience to par- 
take of this ordinance at least four or six times 
in the year ; and continue thus to show forth 
the Lord's death till he come. 

We have already seen that the eucharist 
succeeded to the passover, and have proved 
that the passover was intended to typify and 
point out this new covenant rite : the same au- 
thority that made it the bounden duty of every 
Israelite to keep the passover, has made it the 
duty of every Christian to receive the sacra- 
ment of the Lord's supper. Who has not read, 
(Num. ix, 13,) " The man that is clean, and is 



THE EUCHARIST. 133 

not on a journey, and forbeareth to keep trie 
passover, even the same shall be cut off from 
the people ; because he brought not the offer- 
ing of the Lord in his appointed season: that 
man shall bear his sin." Can any thing be 
more solemn than this ? The paschal lamb was 
an expiatory victim ; he who offered it to God 
by faith was received into the favour of God, 
and had his sins remitted in virtue of that atone- 
ment represented by the paschal lamb. He 
who did not keep the passover, bore his own sin; 
he offered no sacrifice, therefore his sins were 
not remitted. He who does not receive the 
holy sacrament, in reference to the atonement 
made by the passion and death of Christ, shall 
also bear his own sin. Let no soul trifle here : 
if a man believe that the due observance of this 
ordinance is divinely authorized, he cannot re- 
frain from its celebration and be guiltless. 
4. Apparatus non neglectus. Proper cheer 

and ACCOMMODATIONS. 

After what has been said in order to prove 
that the sacrament of the Lord's supper repre- 
sents a feast upon a sacrifice ; and that this sacri- 
fice is no less than the body of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, which has been broken for us, and the 
blood of the new covenant sacrifice which has 
been shed for us, there is no need to attempt to 



134 DISCOURSE ON 

' prove that the provision which God has made, 
for the entertainment of his guests, is of the 
most exalted and excellent kind ; .and that every 
person may think himself highly favoured in- 
deed, who, with proper dispositions, is per- 
mitted to sit down at the table of the Lord. 
In order, therefore, that each may feel himself 
thus honoured and privileged, it is of vast im- 
portance that the symbols of this sacrifice speak, 
as much as possible, to the heart, through the 
medium of the senses. Hence, the bread used 
should be the purest and best that can possibly 
be procured, and the wine should be of the same 
quality ; that, as far as possible, the eye, the 
taste, and the smell, maybe pleasingly gratified. 
What a most unfavourable impression must 
stale or bitter bread, acrid or vapid wine, make 
upon the mind ! Are these fit symbols of this 
most precious sacrifice ? Would we have at our 
own tables, even on ordinary times, such abo- 
minable aliments as those sometimes laid on the 
Lord's table ? Church wardens, and superin- 
tendents of this ordinance in general, should 
take good heed, that not only every thing be 
done decently and in order, but that the ele- 
ments be of the most excellent kind. If a 
man's senses be either insulted or tortured by 
what is recommended to him as a mean of sal- 



THE EUCHARIST. 135 

vation, is it likely that his mind will so co- 
operate with tlje ordinance, as to derive spirit- 
ual good from it ? Certainly not. In such a 
case, he may attend the ordinance as a duty, 
and take up the performance as a cross : but it 
will be impossible for him to derive real benefit 
from it. Besides, a sensible, conscientious man 
must be disgusted with the slovenly and crimi- 
nally negligent manner in which this sacred 
ordinance is celebrated. The passover, it is 
true, was to be eaten by the Jews with bitter 
herbs, in remembrance of their former bondage ; 
but the sacrament of the Lord's supper is a 
commemoration of the most glorious and auspi- 
cious event that ever took place since God laid 
the foundation of the universe. It is, in a word, 
a synopsis, or general view, of all that is called 
the glad tidings of salvation, through the incar- 
nation, passion., death, resurrection, ascension, 
and intercession of Jesus Christ, the world's 
Saviour and the sinner's Friend. In the pri- 
mitive church it was always esteemed a feast, 
and never accompanied with any act of mortifi- 
cation. Those who think this circumstance is 
unworthy of serious regard, show thereby how 
little they know of human nature ; and how apt 
some are to affect to be wise above what is 
written, and to fancy themselves above that 



136 DISCOURSE ON 

which is, in reality, above them. Let, therefore, 
not only the elements, but the whole apparatus, 
and even the mode of administering, be such as 
shall meet and please all the senses, and through 
their medium affect and edify the soul. With 
such helps, under the influence 6f the blessed 
Spirit, devotion must be raised, the flame of 
pure gratitude kindled, the hungry soul fed, and 
believers built up on their most holy faith. 

" Let all things,' 7 says the apostle, " be done 
decently and in order :" this command should 
be felt, in its most extensive sense, in every 
thing relative to this ordinance. To cut off all 
occasion of offence, and to make every part of 
the ordinance edifying and salutary, every mi- 
nister should take care that his whole deport- 
ment be grave, and his words solemn and im- 
pressive ; not only the sacred elements should 
be of the purest and best quality, but also the 
holy vessels, of whatever metal, perfectly clean, 
and decently arranged on the table. The com- 
municants, in receiving the bread and wine, 
should not be hurried, so as to endanger their 
dropping the one, or spilling the other, as acci- 
dents of this kind have been of dreadful conse- 
quence to some weak minds. The pieces of 
bread should be of a convenient size, not too 
small, (which is frequently the case,) as it is 



THE EUCHARIST. 137 

then impossible to take them readily out of the 
hands of the minister. No communicant should 
receive with a glove on : this is indecent, not to , 
say irreverent. Perhaps the best way of re- 
ceiving the bread is to open the hand,, and let 
the minister lay it upon the palm, whence* it 
may be taken by the communicant with readi- 
ness and ease. 

As to the posture in which it is received, lit- 
tle need be said, as the subject is of no great 
importance. Our Lord and his disciples cer- 
tainly took it in a reclining posture, as this was 
the Jewish custom at meals ; and where there 
are only ten or twelve communicants, the reclin- 
ing mode, though contrary to the custom of all 
western countries, may be literally and inno- 
cently copied; but where there are from five 
hundred to one thousand communicants, this 
would be impracticable. There is no evidence, 
in the sacred text, that they stood with their 
staves in their hands, and their loins girded, as 
the ancient Israelites did at their first celebra- 
tion of the passover. The reverse seems indi- 
cated in the accounts given by the evangelists, 
as they particularly assert that he sat down, or 
reclined, avanetro, with his disciples. Some 
choose to sit, as at their ordinary meals ; when 
this is a custom among a whole religious sect, 



138 DISCOURSE ON 

no man is authorized to blame it. Provided it 
can be done in a proper spirit of devotion, it 
may be as profitably received in that as in any 
other way. In the primitive church it was 
generally received standing,' and always so on 
the Lord's day, and on the interim between 
Easter and Whitsuntide^ as, on those times, it 
Was deemed unlawful to kneel in any part of 
divine worship. In the Church of Rome, and 
in the Church of England, all the communicants 
receive kneeling : the former kneel, because 
they worsjrip the consecrated wafer ; the latter, 
who reject this sentiment with abhorrence, ne- 
vertheless kneel, the better to express submis- 
sion to the divine authority, and a deep sense of 
their own unworthiness. The posture itself of 
kneeling, it must be confessed, is well calcu- 
lated to excite and impress such sentiments ; 
and perhaps, upon the whole, is preferable to 
all others. It is, however, a matter of compa- 
ratively small moment, and should never be the 
cause of dissension among religious people ; 
only, in every church and congregation, for the 
sake of order and uniformity, all should sit, or 
all should kneel. Let the former consider, they 
sit not at a common meal ; and let the latter 
reflect, that they are bowed before that God who 
searches the heart. The words used in conse- 



THE EUCHARIST. 139 

cration should, undoubtedly, be taken from the 
sacred Scriptures ; and the form used in the 
Church of England is, beyond all controversy, 
the best of its kind. 

From the great respect that was paid to this 
ordinance, in ancient times, it is sufficiently 
evident that uncommon influences of the Spirit 
of God accompanied the celebration of it.* In 
those times, the communicants discerned the 
Lord's body ; they perceived that it represented 
the sacrifice which was offered for them, and 
pointed out the Lamb, newly slain, before the 
throne : they partook of it, therefore, with strong 
faith in the atoning efficacy of the death of 
Christ, which they had thus represented, at 
once, both to the eyes of their body and those 
of their mind ; and the natural consequence I 
was, that the glory of God filled the place where 
they sat, and the souls that worshipped in it. 
Those were the days of the Son of man, and 
might be again amply realized, were the holy 

* Hence those epithets applied to it by St. Ignatius, in 
his epistle to the Ephesians, (see the motto to this Dis- 
course,) " Brethren, standfast in the faith of Jesus Christ 
— in his passion and resurrection ; breaking that one 
bread which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote 
against death, and the means of living in God by Christ 
Jesus ; the medicament that expels all evil.'* 11 



1-10 DISCOURSE ON 

eucharist rightly administered and Scripturally 
received. 

In the apparatus of this feast, a contribution 
for the support of the poor should never be neg- 
lected. y This was a custom religiously observed 
from the very remotest antiquity of the Chris- 
tian era. This is the only way we have of 
giving a substantial form to our gratitude, and 
rendering it palpable. The poor, and espe- 
cially the pious poor, are the proper repre- 
, sentatives ^f Him, who, though he was rich, 
yet for our sakes became poor, that we, through 
his poverty, might be rich. He, then, who 
hath pity on the poor, lendeth to the Lord. 
Let no man appear at this ordinance empty 
handed, and let every man give as God has 
prospered him. 

It might be deemed necessary by some, that, 
at the close of such a discourse, proper direc- 
tions should be given how to receive profitably, 
and how to behave before and after communi- 
cating. But this is so generally well provided 
for, in the sermons commonly preached on such 
occasions, and by books of devotion, that it may 
well be dispensed with here. Besides, much 
may be collected from the preceding pages 
themselves, the grand object of which is to 
teach men how to discern, the hordes body in this 



THE EUCHARIST. Ml 

holy institution ; and they that do so cannot use 
it unprofitably. 

IV. It may be just necessary to state a few 
reasons for frequenting the table of the Lord, 
and profiting by this ordinance, whicrr either 
have not been previously mentioned, or not in a 
manner sufficiently pointed to ensure their effect. 

1. Jesus Christ has commanded his disci- 
ples to do this in remembrance of 'him: and, 
were there no other reason, this certainly must 
be deemed sufficient by all those wio respect 
his authority as their Teacher and Judge. He 
who breaks one of the least of his commandments, 
(and certainly this is not one of the least of 
them,) and teaches others, either by precept or 
example, so to do, shall be called least in the king- 
dom of heaven. What an awful reproof must 
this be to those who either systematically re- 
ject or habitually neglect this holy ordinance ! 

2. As the oft-repeated sacrifices in the Jew- 
ish church, and particularly the passover, were 
intended to point out the Son of God till he 
came ; so, it appears, our blessed Lord design- 
ed that the eucharist should be a principal mean 
of keeping in remembrance his passion and 
death ; and thus show forth him who has died 
for our offences, as the others did him who, in 
the fulness of time, should die. 



142 DISCOURSE 

I believe it will be generally four\d, that those 
who habitually neglect this ordinance, seldom 
attach much consequence to the doctrine of the 
atonement, and those kindred doctrines essen- 
tially connected with it. 

Though I am far from supposing that the 
holy eycharist is itself a sacrifice, which is a 
most gross "error in the Romish Church, yet I 
am as fully* convinced that it can never be 
Scripturally and effectually celebrated by any 
but those v who consider it as representing a 
sacrifice, even 'that of the life of our blessed 
Lord^the only available sacrifice for sin ; and 
that the eucharist is the only ordinance, insti- 
tuted by divine appointment among men, in 
which any thing of the ancient sacrificial forms 
yet remains ; and that this, in its form, and in 
the manner of its administration, partakes so 
much of the ancient expiatory efferings, literally 
considered, and so much of the spirit and design 
of those offerings, as ever to render it the most 
lively exhibition both of the sign and the thing 
signified; and, consequently, a rite the most 
wisely calculated to show forth the death of the 
Son of God, till he shall come to judge the 
quick and the dead. 

3. But there is another reason why this duty 
should be considered as imperiously binding on 



THE EUCHARIST. 143 

every Christian soul. It is a standing and 
inexpugnable proof of the authenticity of the 
Christian religion. An able writer of our own 
country has observed, that a matter of fact, how- 
ever remote, is rendered incontestable by the 
following criteria : — 1. " That the matter of fact 
be such as men's senses, their eyes and ears 
may be judges of. 2. That it B&f&ojje piibiictf. 
3. That both public monumeitf&J}&t&eipt up in 
memory of it, and some outward actions be per- 
formed. 4. That such monuments and such 
actions or observances be instituted and do com^ 
mence from the time that* the matter of fact was 
done." Now all these criteria, he demonstrates, 
concur in relation to the matters of fact re- 
corded of Moses and of Christ. The miracles 
of our Lord were done publicly, and in the face 
of the world. Three thousand souls at one 
time, and five thousand at another, were con- 
verted to Christianity on the evidence of these 
facts. Baptism, and the Lord's supper, were 
instituted as perpetual memorials of these 
things, at the very time in which they were 
said to have been done ; and these have been 
observed in the whole Christian world from 
that time until now. Therefore, the adminis- 
tration of these sacraments is an incontestable 
proof of the authenticity of the Christian reli- 



144 DISCOURSE ON 

giom See Leslie's Easy Method with the 
Deists. 

It is not, therefore, merely for the purpose of 
calling to remembrance the death of our blessed 
Lord, for the increase and confirmation of our 
faith ; it is not merely that the church of Christ 
>houJd have an additional mean, whereby God 
"might communicate the choicest influences of 
his grace^W^Bpflrifto the souls of the faithful, 
that Christians should conscientiously observe, 
and devoutly frequent, the sacrament of the 
Lord's supper : but they should continue con- 
scientiously to observ*e it, as a public, far- 
speaking, and irrefragible proof of the divine 
authenticity of our holy religion. Those, there- ■ 
fore, who neglect this ordinance, not only sin 
against the commandment of Christ, neglect 
that mean by which their souls might receive 
much comfort and edification, but, as far as in 
them lies, weaken those evidences of the reli- 
gion they profess to believe, which have been 
one great cause, under God, of its triumphing 
over all the persecution and contradiction of 
the successive ages of infidelity, from its esta- 
blishment to the present hour. Had all the 
followers of Christ treated this divine ordinance 
as a few have done, pretending that it is to be 
spiritually understood, (from a complete misap- 



THE EUCHARIST. 145 

plication of John vi, 63,) and that no rite ox form 
should be observed in commemoration of it, 
where had been one of the most convincing 
evidences of Christianity this day! What a 
master piece was it in the economy of divine 
Providence, that a teaching like this was not 
permitted to spring up in the infancy of Chris- 
tianity, nor till sixteen hundred years after its 
establishment, by which time its grand facts 
had been rendered incontrovertible ! Such is 
the wisdom of God, and such his watchful care 
over his church. 

Sincerely I thank God that this sentiment 
has had but a very limited spread, and never 
can be general while the letter and spirit of 
Christianity remain in the world. 

The discourse which our Lord held with the 
Jews, (John vi, 30-63,) concerning the manna 
which their fathers ate in the wilderness, and 
which he intimates represented himself, has 
been mistaken by several for a discourse on the 
holy sacrament. The chronology of the gos- 
pels sufficiently proves that our Lord spake 
these words in one of the synagogues of C£r 
pernaum, at least twelve months before the 
institution of the eucharist. Nor has it any 
reference whatever to that ordinance. No man 
has ever yet proved the contrary. 
10 



146 discourse ri 

To multiply arguments in reference to the 
same subject, would, I apprehend, be abso- 
lutely needless. All who truly fear God, and 
whose minds are not incurafcy warped by their 
peculiar creed, will feel it their highest duty 
and interest to fulfil every command of Christ, 
and will particularly rejoice in the opportunity, 
g SToften as jtkhalt occur, of eating of this bread, 
and drinking of/ this cup, in remembrance that 
Christ Jesus died for them. 

It has often been inquired, " Who are they 
who sho&ld. administer this sacred ordinance? 
May not any truly Christian man or woman 
deliver it to others ?" I answer, the ministers of 
the gospel, alone, should dispense the symbols 
of the body and blood of Christ ; and to act 
differently would necessarily produce confusion 
in, and ultimately contempt of, this blessed in- 
stitution. The minister alone consecrate3 the 
elements in all the periods of the Christian 
church, though sometimes the deacons deli- 
vered them to the people : but even this was 
far from being a common case, for, in general, 
the minister not only consecrated but delivered 
the elements to each communicant. 

Another question of greater importance is the 
following : — " Is the ungodliness of the minis- 
ter any prejudice to the ordinance itself, or to 



THE EUCHARIST. 147 

the devou^communicant ?" I answer — 1. None 
, who is ungodly should ever be permitted to mi- 
nister in holy things, on any pretence whatever : 
and in this ordinance, in particular, ho unhal- 
lowed hand should be seen. 2. ^As the*benefit 
to be derived from the eucharist depends en- 
tirely on the presence and blessing of God, it 
cannot be reasonably expected that he will work 
through the instrumentality of the profligate or 
the profane. Many have idled away their time 
in endeavouring to prove that the ungodliness of 
the minister is no prejudice to the worthy commu- 
nicant : but God hasMisproved this by ten thou- 
sand instances, in which he has, in a general 
way, withheld his divine influence, because of 
the wickedness or worthlessness of him who 
ministered, whether bishop, priest, minister, or 
preacher. God has always required, and ever 
will require, that those who minister in holy 
things shall have upright hearts and clean hands. 
Those who are of a different character bring 
the ordinance of God into contempt. 

" But supposing a man has not the opportu- 
nity of receiving the eucharist from the hands 
of a holy man, should he not receive it at all ?" 
I answer, I hope it will seldom be found diffi- 
cult to meet with this ordinance in the most 
unexceptionable way ; but should such a case 



148 DISCOURSE ON 

occur, that it must be either received from an 
improper person, or not received at all, I would 
then advise, receive it by all m&ns ; as you 
will thereby bear a testimony to the truth of 
the new covenant, and do what in you lies to 
fulfil the command of Christ: if, therefore, 
it be impossible for you to get the ordinance 
in its purity, and properly administered, then 
take it as you can, and God, who knows the 
circumstances of the case, will not withhold 
from you a measure of the divine influence. 
But this can be no excuse for those who, 
through a blind or bigoted attachment to a par- 
ticular place or form, choose rather to commu- 
nicate with the profane, than receive the eucha- 
rist, according to the pure institution of Jesus 
Christ, from the most unblemished hands ; and 
in company with saints of the first character ! 
Of all superstitions, this is the most egregious 
and culpable. Profanity and sin will certainly 
prevent the divine Spirit from realizing the 
sign in the souls of the worthless ministers and 
sinful communicants : but the want of episco- 
pal ordination in the person, or consecration in 
the place, can never prevent Him, who is not 
confined to temples made by hands, and who 
sends by whom he will send, from pouring out 
his Spirit upon those who call faithfully upon 



THE EUCHARIST. 149 

his name, and who go to meet him in his ap- 
pointed ways. 

But even "serious Christians may deprive 
themselves of the -due benefit of the eucharist, 
by giving way to hurry and precipitation. 
Scarcely any thing is more unbecoming than 
to see the majority of communicants, as soon 
as they have received, posting out of the church 
or chapel, so that at the conclusion of the ordi- 
nance very few are found to join together in a 
general thanksgiving to God for the benefits 
conferred by the passion and death of Christ, 
by means of this blessed ordinance. - All the 
communicants, unless absolute necessity obliges 
them to depart, should remain till the whole 
service is concluded, that the thanksgiving of 
many may, in one general acclamation, redound- 
to the glory of God and the Lamb. 

In many congregations, where the communi- 
cants are very numerous, this general defection 
is produced by the tedious and insufferable de- 
lay occasioned through want of proper assist- 
ants. I have often seen six hundred, and 
sometimes one thousand communicants and 
upward, waiting to be served by one minister ! 
Masters and heads of families are obliged to' 
return to their charge, mothers are constrained 
to hurry home to their children, and servants to 



150 DISCOURSE ON 

minister to their respective families* And who, 
in this case, could blame them f Religion was 
never intended to break in on familjr obligations, 
nor to supersede domestic duties. 

In all large congregations, there should be 
•at least three ministers, that hurry may be pre- 
vented, and the ordinance concluded in such a 
reasonable portion of time, that no person may 
be obliged to leave the house of God before the 
congregation is regularly dismissed. Those 
who haye no such calls, and indulge themselves 
in trre habit of posting off as soon as they have 
received the sacred elements, must answer to 
God for an act that not only betrays their great 
lack of serious godliness, but borders,- I had 
almost said, on profanity and irreligion. Judas, 
of all the disciples, went out before the holy 
supper was concluded ! Reader, wilt thou go 
and do likewise ? God forbid ! 



CONCLUSION. 



I have already remarked, p. 97, that the 
eucharist may be considered as a faderal rite; 
for in this light the ancient feasts upon sacri- 
fices were generally understood : but as this 
subject was but barely mentioned, and is of 
great importance to every communicant, I shall 
here consider it more extensively. 



r 



THE EUCHARIST. 151 

Dr. Cudworth, to whose excellent Discourse 
on the true Nature of the Lords Supper the pre- 
ceding pagefc are not a little indebted, has, in 
his sixth chapter^Some excellent observations 
on this head. That the eating of God's sacri- 
fice was a federal rite between God and those 
who offered it, he considers as proved from the 
custom of the ancients, and especially of the 
Orientals, who ate and drank together in order 
to ratify and confirm the covenants they had 
made. 

Thus, when Isaac made *a covenant^fcith 
Abimelech, it is said, (Gen. xxvi,) " He made 
him, and those who were with him, a, feast; 
and they did eat and drink, and rose up betimes 
in the morning, and sware to one another." 
When Laban made a covenant with Jacob, 
(Gen. xxxi, 44,) it is said, " They took stones, 
and made a heap, and did eat there upon the 
heap ;" on which text Rah. Moses Bar Nacham 
makes this sensible comment, — " They did eat 
there a little upon the heap for a memorial ; 
because it was the manner of those who enter 
into covenant, to eat both together of the same 
bread, as a symbol of love and friendship.' , 
And R. Isaac Abarbanel confirms this : " It 
was," says he, " an ancient custom among 
them, that they who did eat bread together, 



152 DISCOURSE ON 

should ever after be accounted for faithful bre- 
thren/' In Josh, ix, 14, we are-informed, that 
when the Gibeonites came to the men of Israel 
and desired them to make afleague with them, 
" the men of Israel took their victuals, and 
asked not counsel of the mouth of the Lord ;" 
which Rabbi Kimchi thus expounds: — "They 
took of their victuals, and ate with them, by 
way of covenant." The consequence was, as 
the context informs us, Joshua made peace vritk 
them. 

Federal rites,* thus ratified and confirmed, 
were, in general, so sacredly observed, that 
Celsus, in his controversy with Origen, deems 
it an absolutely improbable thing, that Judas, 
who had eaten and drank with his 'Lord and 
Master, could possibly betray him ; and there- 
fore rejects the whole account : on, says he, 
av6pG)7rG) fiev o Koivuvr\oac Tpanetyc ovk av 
avTG) emtovXevoetev, ttoXXg) rrXeov o 9e<*> ov- 
vzvwxrfiuc; ovk av avroj emdovhog eycvero. 
" Fo? if no man who has partook of the table 
of another, would ever lay snares far his friend ; 
much less would he betray his God, who had 
been partaker with him." Origen, in his reply, 
is obliged to grant that this was a very uncom- 
mon case, yet that several instances had oc- 
curred in the histories both of the Greeks and 



THE EUCHARIST. 153 

barbarians. From these examples Dr. C. con- 
cludes, that the true origin of the word n^n 
berith, which signifies a covenant, or any 
fader al communioftfis the root n*o barah, he ate, 
because it was the constant custom of the He- 
brews, and other Oriental nations, to establish 
covenants by eating and drinking together. 

Nor was this the case among these nations 
only; all heathen antiquity abounds with in- 
stances of the same kind. They not only 
feasted on their sacrifices, but thev con- 
cluded covenants and treaties df all sdlts at 
these feasts : and as salt was the symbm of 
friendship, it was always used on such occa- 
sions, both among the Jews and among the 
heathens; hence God's command, (Lev. ii, 13,) 
" Thou shalt not suffer the salt of the covenant 
of thy God to be lacking ; with all thine offer- 
ings thou shalt offer salt." So among the 
Greeks, AAec koc rpane^a, salt and table, were 
used proverbially to express friendship; and 
AXag teat rpane^av iragataivetv, to transgress 
the salt and table, signified to violate the most 
sacred league of friendship. From these pre- * 
mises Dr. Cud worth concludes, "As the legal 
sacrifices, with the feasts on those sacrifices', 
were fcederal rites between God and men; 
in like manner, I say, the Lord's supper under 



154 DISCOURSE ON THE EUCHARIST. 

the gospel must needs be a federal banquet 
between God and man; where, by eating and 
drinking at God's own table, and of his meat, 
we are taken into a sacred ^covenant, and in- 
violable league of friendship with him. 
-r-This is certainly true of every faithful com- 
municant ; and much consolation may be de- 
rived from a proper consideration of tne subject. 
If the covenant have been made according to 
the divine appointment, (i. e., by lively faith 
in Christ, the real fadpral sacrifice,) on God's 
part'lt is ever inviolate. Let him, therefore, 
whonas thus entered into the Lord's covenant, 
continue steadfast and immoveable, always 
abounding in the work of the Lord ; then, 
" neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor princi- 
palities, nor powers, nor things present, nor 
things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any 
other creature, shall be able to separate him 
from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus 
our Lord." Amen. 
London, Jan. 1, 1808. 

THE END. 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
{724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 665 457 5 












m 






■ 
■ 



:\>v 



■ 




■ 



'*A*^ I ■ LlkSj 






